/ Rich Simpson's claims...finally caught up with him?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
friend102 Dec 2010
It seems that Rich Simpson has recently been dropped by a few of his sponsors.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,16327.0.html
Darren Jackson 02 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

John Simpson liberated Kabul... On his own.
Robertostallioni 02 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: and the queen mothers died too.
friend102 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

I know it's not the most up to date news but does anyone know anything more about this? If it's true, are we likely to see an article on here or in the mags? I for one would like to know the truth once and for all.
Padraig 02 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

.. does anyone know anything more about this?

No. But thanks for reminding me why I prefer UKC! It does what it says ont tin, no avatars, etc, etc. Oh and fewer smug bastards!
tom.e 02 Dec 2010
In reply to Padraig: UKB is ironic. UKC is cheesy. Or is it the other way around...?
In reply to Padraig:

UKB is for critters and people who say "dude" in unconvincing Rotherham accents. .

I thought he packed it all in a few years ago.
Jonny2vests 02 Dec 2010
In reply to tom.e:
> (In reply to Padraig) UKB is ironic. UKC is cheesy. Or is it the other way around...?

No, that sounds about right. I like that.
Jonny2vests 02 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:
> It seems that Rich Simpson has recently been dropped by a few of his sponsors.
>
> http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,16327.0.html

We're you expecting a reaction? Believe it or not, there are plenty of 'real' climbers on UKC. Having said that, you might get one in a bit

alx 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

Seeing the film or Rich S training for/climbing Action Direct was for me, simply inspirational. Reading Steve McClure's articles on Rich's training and approach to this climb in my mind meant he transcended beyond just a media portrayal of a series of grades, he represented what one man could do with giants portion of determination.

Really I think what is at stake is the future of hard climbing. Are we now to believe that unless we have video footage, photo-shopped pics, an entourage of spotters/belayers at our beck and call, all of our efforts will dismissed an debated to the nth degree.

Really as responsible climbers, we have a duty to protect ourselves from ourselves or the beauty of the climbing experience will become a farce.
Jonny2vests 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alx:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Are we now to believe that unless we have video footage, photo-shopped pics, an entourage of spotters/belayers at our beck and call, all of our efforts will dismissed an debated to the nth degree.

For major, significant ascents, I think you should at least be able to produce a belayer. Unless you solo'd it in which case a witness might be in order.

So what should we do with dishonest sponsored climbers claiming major ascents, let them crack on? (Not referring to anyone in particular here, just asking the question).
alx 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

I would agree, not having at least a belayer to verify the ascent is unusual.

However as Steve McC has always stated Rich S is the quite little man that carries a big stick.

Not sure what to make of it all. Its a climbing case of Michael Jackson.

Is he a man that thinks hes a boy, in which case having sleepovers is acceptable. Or is he a child fiend.
~~
Is he a man that just doesn't give a toss about the media? Or is he a liar and a braggart.

Im inclined to believe that he doesn't care what we think, nor do his friends and associates. In which case this debate and our individual POV's are of little merit.

Just a little interesting side note is Percy B's remarks about A Muerte.
Why is it that people give up trying a route once a FA is taken? What motivates these climbers then? Claiming the FA and the media coverage that follows surely cannot be the sole reason and as such getting the second ascent is not an exercise worth partaking in. Surely if this is the case then why do we place them on such a pedestal to aspire to?

Right I am off to brush my teeth with my WildCountry tooth brush, put on my WildCountry leather bouldering pouch and sleep in my WildCountry matching duvet and pillow cases.

Night All
Jonny2vests 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alx:

Lol, genius the way you managed to bring MJ into it.
Mick Ward 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

Is your assumption ('dropped')

> It seems that Rich Simpson has recently been dropped by a few of his sponsors.


the only thing underpinning your rhetorical assertion:

'Topic - Rich Simpson's claims...finally caught up with him?'


or do you have any actual evidence?


Mick

grubes 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:

Hi Mick I followed this thread on UKB when It happened yes he has been dropped.

see Percy B's comment on the third page

> One quick phone call informs me that RS has been dropped by one sponsor and he has resigned from his other sponsorship contracts (before they binned him too one would think). He didn't produce the proof that they wanted to validate his ascents.

thread started of with a few people confused why he disappeared from the sponsored climbers lists.
The thread is now locked out and will stay that whay unless Rich himself replys
friend103 Dec 2010
In reply to Padraig:
> No. But thanks for reminding me why I prefer UKC! It does what it says ont tin, no avatars, etc, etc. Oh and fewer smug bastards!

But behind all the pseudonyms and avatars there are quite a few people on that site who know what they're talking about. For example:
carlisle slapper = Dan Varian
Percy B = Percy Bishton
Johnnie Brown = Adam Long
To name just a few.

These are seemingly intelligent, well-connected people who have been around in the (very small) climbing world for quite a while now and are firmly in the doubting camp. It's not just mindless speculation and rumour from armchair critics. Have you actually read it?

Of particular interest are the details of his recent solo of the Brandler-Hasse and the seemingly unrealistic time he claimed to have completed it in, compared with Alex Huber's solo ascent. And the fact that he then failed to provide any photo evidence or otherwise for his sponsors when they asked for it! Not to mention all the improbable running claims highlighted on the thread on here a while ago, and the unwitnessed/unbelayed hard routes.

Isn't it time that this was settled once and for all? At least so the history books can be put right. It seems like everyone knows the truth about it, but as long as Rich Simpson continues to ignore everyone's efforts to get a straight answer, then it just keeps flaring up and then smouldering for a bit before flaring up again like it has several times now. It seems to me that it's just a ridiculous version of the Emperor's new clothes story...

Surely it would be better for both him and the sport in general if this matter was settled one way or the other so a line could be drawn under it.
aw 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: from Doylo on UKB...counters the being dropped claim.


Re: simpson vanishes...
« Reply #170 on: November 09, 2010, 08:10:28 pm »
When rich became aware of the UKC thread two weeks ago he wrote to his sponsors telling them he was giving up his sponsorship. He had no intention to reply to the thread. Ultimately he doesn t care if people think he s a liar but he might write something in december when term finishes. And you can keep googling rich simpson boxing/running til the cows come home but i assure you you won t find anything.
Logged
Mick Ward 03 Dec 2010
In reply to grubes:

My apologies about the 'dropped'. I looked at the first page of UKB but couldn't really take any more. I'm never sure who half these dudes are but, assuming Percy was, well, Percy (thoroughly decent guy, etc) was more than a bit surprised.

Given Rich Simpson's questioning of the credibility of another climber, this really makes the mind boggle. Karma??

It seems that, these days, any noteworthy ascent attracts a stream of negativity (together with the praise).

On the other hand, the Cornish controversy and the Eroica one (and now this??) leave you reeling. Has the world suddently gone mad?

Mick
friend103 Dec 2010
In reply to aw:

Hmmm. And you really believe that?

I think it's more a case of Doylo just being loyal and believing what his friend told him.

So either Wild Country lied to Percy Bishton about dropping Rich Simpson to save face (because they were upset that he no longer wanted to continue with his sponsorship deal)

OR

Rich Simpson lied to his friend Chris Doyle about being dropped to save face (he didn't want to admit that he was being dropped)

Under the current circumstances, and given everything that has come to light recently, which one seems more likely?
UKB Shark 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward: Has the world suddently gone mad?


Come on Mick. I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can think of any number of analogous examples of chipping, hoaxes and disputations over claims over the last 40 years that you've been climbing.
PeterJuggler 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: Having read the thread on UKB weeks ago it seems clear that no-one knows the truth from the fiction. Until more evidence comes to light or RS himself makes some kind of statement then there won't be any change. There would be no point someone writing up a news story based on pure speculation. I believe the whole thing started on UKC with the 4 minute mile thread.
remus 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward: only on the internet. 95% of climbers won't have heard anything about any of the incidents you mention.
grubes 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (In reply to grubes)
>
> My apologies about the 'dropped'. I looked at the first page of UKB but couldn't really take any more. I'm never sure who half these dudes are but, assuming Percy was, well, Percy (thoroughly decent guy, etc) was more than a bit surprised.

Hi Mick,
No need to apologise its a long thread. To read through that will take a lot of time (and maybe a bit of your soul towards the end).
It eventually wound down and got locked out.
UKB Shark 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Juggler13: Juggler13:> (In reply to friend1) Having read the thread on UKB weeks ago it seems clear that no-one knows the truth from the fiction. Until more evidence comes to light or RS himself makes some kind of statement then there won't be any change.


Quite. As Varian says at the end of that thread before I closed it:

"Well put Ru, i realised this when i first posted here, and this seems like a decent time to stop, it'd just be nice to hit something concrete rather than permanently pig swilling because every time a question is asked it produces nothing (which only leads to the desire to keep asking), however it looks like the only way that can possibly happen is for it to come from Rich, so i'll drop it."
http://tinyurl.com/3yv5qop

I believe that Jack Geldard was investigating to write an article on the subject. I hope he does. There was an investigation into Fred Rouhling a few years back that ended up lending support to his claim of doing Akira http://www.climbing.com/exclusive/features/fredrouhling/
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
> (In reply to Juggler13) Juggler13:> (In reply to friend1) Having read the thread on UKB weeks ago it seems clear that no-one knows the truth from the fiction. Until more evidence comes to light or RS himself makes some kind of statement then there won't be any change.


It still raises the question of how you could run the NY Marathon in 2.30 and put in a FMM at Alexander Stadium and NOT appear on any kind of running database. In a data driven world where timings are automated and obsessively recorded, those kinds of questions seem to answer themselves.
friend103 Dec 2010
In reply to remus:
> only on the internet. 95% of climbers won't have heard anything about any of the incidents you mention.

Which is why it's so important to finally get the truth out and put this matter to rest. So according to that figure 95% of climbers (obviously I know that a lot of these won't have even heard of RS but the principal still stands) are still under the impression that:-
Rich Simpson did the first british ascent of Action Directe
RS did the FA of A Muerte
RS has run a sub 2:30 marathon
RS has run a sub 4 min mile
RS has soloed the Brandler Hasse quicker than Alex Huber
as well as many other 2nd, 3rd, 4th ascents of world-famous 8c+ routes.

This is not the same as the Si O'Connor debacle. This is an internationally renowned climber with some incredible feats to his name, which have been reported in the international media and gone into the history books as fact.

And now, as the truth finally appears to be emerging, why are some people so quick to defend him and just say "he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt" and let history lie?
I'm all for giving him the benefit of doubt on one or two unwitnessed ascents, but all of them?! Come on!! Seriously? And all his running / boxing claims too?
And yet the supporter's only defense seems to be "but I've seen him do loads of one-armers on a video" or "he looks really strong on that pinky perky video". Noone is denying that he was incredibly strong in the schoolroom.
But everyone is struggling to find any evidence of him doing what he claims to have done.
Mick Ward 03 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

Hi Simon,

Yes, of course there are skeletons rattling around in cupboards. But surely the difference today is the far more concentrated power of the climbing media.

Even as a callow youth, it occurred to me that McCallum should have cleaned his 1960s 'routes' before claiming them. He was bound to be nabbed, sooner or later.

In the 70s, if people had a bit of tension or a sneaky pull on a runner, then it was usually between them and their conscience/the second.

But surely nowadays, when even bona fide ascents are subjected to the most nitpicking scrutiny, it must be obvious to anyone that you're going to be found out.

Mick
alex 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

I took photos of him on Action Directe. Not on his actual ascent but he had no problem whatsoever doing any move or linking any sequence on Action Directe.

As Chris Doyle says on the UKB thread, the mind boggles that someone would devote so much of their life training for one route, get stronger than the route, and then not do it.

He wasn't only strong in the schoolroom.
strudles 03 Dec 2010
I don't know anything about this guy and this is the first I've read about it, but just have to say.. as a former 'serious ish' long distance runner the sub 4 min mile/2:30 marathon (at NY too!!) just looks like BS.

I had to run 80 miles a week and train for years just to get near 2:45 (as does every other marathon runner). A sub 4 min mile by a UK athlete would be massive news, as would a sub 2:30 at NY, it would put him among the best runners in the country.

It was stated suggested in the uk bouldering thread he ran under someone else's name in new york.

I did this for the London marathon (naughty I know), I had to start with the fun runners, I had to walk/jog the first 5 minutes because of the sheer number of people/slow runners and the stats show I passed approx 15,000!!!! people by midway ! by the time I got to 22 miles I was 10 mins off my target time, then simply fell apart because of the effort of running around people and taking the longest route.

so in summary to run 2:30 at NY from mid pack is world class imo.

also lance armstrong only ran 2:55 with pacers after focusing on it for a year on his first attempt ! I believe he was 2:30-40 ish on his second attempt.
ChrisJD 03 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

> I believe that Jack Geldard was investigating to write an article on the subject. I hope he does. There was an investigation into Fred Rouhling a few years back that ended up lending support to his claim of doing Akira http://www.climbing.com/exclusive/features/fredrouhling/

That's a good article - well worth a look.

Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:
> (In reply to friend1)
>
> I took photos of him on Action Directe. Not on his actual ascent but he had no problem whatsoever doing any move or linking any sequence on Action Directe.
>
> As Chris Doyle says on the UKB thread, the mind boggles that someone would devote so much of their life training for one route, get stronger than the route, and then not do it.
>
> He wasn't only strong in the schoolroom.

Doing the moves is one thing. Linking the whole thing is another. Think of Andy Pollitt on Punks in the Gym or Mark Leech on The Screaming Dream.
alex 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

Of course. I was simply correcting Friend1.

On AD he looked very strong, had no problem linking any section and repeated the crux over and over for photos. Did he do the route? You'll have to ask him that. But to imply that he wasn't capable is wrong.
friend103 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:

> I took photos of him on Action Directe. Not on his actual ascent but he had no problem whatsoever doing any move or linking any sequence on Action Directe.

With all due respect Alex, this means absolutely nothing. As Dan Varian said on the UKB thread, he's belayed quite a few people on it and they've all done bigger links than a) RS did on Doyle's video and (b) Doyle witnessed himself. And they still haven't done it. Seeing people do moves easily in isolation or linking short sections together does not mean anything. I remember reading that Iker Pou fell from the very last move on Action Directe more than 20 times on redpoint (IIRC) before finally succeeding. How many times did anyone witness RS even get to that final move on redpoint before his success?

> As Chris Doyle says on the UKB thread, the mind boggles that someone would devote so much of their life training for one route, get stronger than the route, and then not do it.
Indeed! I think that's why everyone is struggling so much to recognise the truth. And understandably so. But it seems to me that it's time people started to look beyond the smokescreen
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> Of course. I was simply correcting Friend1.
>
> On AD he looked very strong, had no problem linking any section and repeated the crux over and over for photos. Did he do the route? You'll have to ask him that. But to imply that he wasn't capable is wrong.

I will have to take your word for that - but I agree with your sentiments.

For me, I view his climbing claims in light of his other boxing, running and rowing claims. The running claims are awesome. But the big question with the running claims is not to do with 'could he run sub 2.30 in a marathon and a FMM', it is rather 'could he run sub 2.30 in a marathon and a FMM and avoid appearing on any kind of running database in this day and age?'.
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:

have you just added a photo of action direct to the site? or are ukc preparing for an article?

interesting
alex 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

Yep. But people reading the thread might have the impression that he was nowhere near the standard needed. But he was, and he appeared to devote his life to it for several years.

I don't know what would be more impressive tbh - doing it, or not doing it and convincing the world that he did.

Just uploaded old pic of him on it for old times sake. SOunds like Jack might use it sometime!
In reply to friend1: Hi,

Firstly, Friend1 - please post under your usual forum name on controversial topics in future, it is completely unfair to name someone, when you are unwilling to be named yourself.

Secondly, it has been suggested in the article that I have been researching in to this matter. This is true. I have been and I have been in contact with Rich and with some of his sponsors or former sponsors.

This is a very complicated matter. (How I laugh at the emails I have received stating "Surely its simple - you should write X or Y and that's it".)

It isn't simple at all, and in my 3 years experience of writing daily climbing news I will tell everyone here that it is nigh on impossible to disprove an ascent 100%.

Proving an ascent is another matter, it is considerably easier to prove an ascent than it is to disprove one.

Anyway - in regard to Rich Simpson.

Rich has politely refused to answer any question, to name any belayer or to comment at all on any matter. He has been friendly, courteous and polite. But he makes no comment.

The Fred Roughling article linked above relies heavily on the cooperation of Fred. Without the cooperation of Rich Simpson, an article investigating his climbing claims would be mainly based on speculation.

If someone would like to do a thorough investigation - I started one, and Ian Parnell started one, then we may publish it at UKC - get in touch with me to discuss.

As it stands now, I am not pursuing my own investigation further.

We did not report Rich's Brandler-Hasse ascent in the UKC news and we did not report his Pan Aroma ascent either. This is not to say we don't believe them, but there was no evidence to support them. This is our current policy on this matter.

As Alex says above he is a super strong and gifted climber and I hope to see many more great ascents from him.

I have met Rich on several occasions and he is a lovely guy.

If he does decide to comment on his ascents and answer questions, then I shall continue my article and produce an in depth piece - probably not dissimilar to the one linked above on Fred Rouhling.

Thanks,

Jack


ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to all:

Can I ask two really simple questions

a) who belayed him on Action Direct

b) Presumably the sub 2.30 marathon is recorded (as in I know it will be, it's the NY marathon FFS), and if he ran under another name RS must be able to say who it was. (and is then verifiable)
ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Jack, (I can guess the answer, but to ask the question) - how did no one know who belayed him on AD - at the time I mean, when there was no 'investigation'?

Surely, standard reporting of a route (even just chatting down the gym) like that would state who was holding the rope.
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd:
> Can I ask two really simple questions
>
> a) who belayed him on Action Direct
Apparently it was someone Rich had met at the Nurenberg racing ring, where he'd been a few times to do some laps. But Rich had never previously mentioned this person to anyone who was out at the time, and they never met him.

> b) Presumably the sub 2.30 marathon is recorded (as in I know it will be, it's the NY marathon FFS), and if he ran under another name RS must be able to say who it was. (and is then verifiable)
Presumably if what Doylo said on UKB is true then Ivan Greene can confirm who it was that gave Rich their ticket. And then this name can be checked on the results page.
PeterJuggler 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd: Surely Alex can tell us whose hand that is in the bottom left of his image.
This whole thing reminds me of a situation in the juggling community. A guy called Albert Lucas claimed to juggle 14 rings (WR) and have a video of it. He decided to keep the video to himself and over 10 years later no-one knows for sure if he did it or not. I believe RS has a video of Careless Torque that he won't show.
alex 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Juggler13:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160794

..it's revisiting for pics, not the actual ascent.
Monk 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:

Didn't you visit Rich in his Boxing gym to take some photos too? I know that on the UKB thread, that was one of the lines of enquiry that they were hoping to follow up at one point to see if anything he said was true.
In reply to alex:

>As Chris Doyle says on the UKB thread, the mind boggles that someone would devote so much of their life training for one route, get stronger than the route, and then not do it.

I don't find this terribly compelling. One might equally say that IF someone spends so much time training for one route and then concludes that actually they're not going to be able to do it, that's precisely the time you expect them to lie about it. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, just that the psychological context doesn't seem to lean one way or the other, to me.

jcm
krank 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
if he had failed on that trip he could always have gone back in the future to get it done, the route isnt going anywhere. He clearly had a huge desire to do AD, why wouldnt he have just gone home trained harder and gone back to crush it next trip instead of lying. I dont see why failing on that particular trip would have meant he no longer wanted to climb AD. I believe him.
In reply to krank:

Well, he might just have lost interest, but not cared simply to admit defeat. Or concluded that actually he wasn't ever going to be able to get strong enough. People react strangely to things sometimes. I'm not saying anything about what happened, just that I don't think one can draw much insight from psychological speculations one way or the other.

jcm
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to krank:
> if he had failed on that trip he could always have gone back in the future to get it done, the route isnt going anywhere. He clearly had a huge desire to do AD, why wouldnt he have just gone home trained harder and gone back to crush it next trip instead of lying.
Errrm. Because it was easier just to say he'd done it than to go back home and train harder? Maybe?

Along your same line of thinking, why would you devote so much of your life training for one route, get stronger than the route, etc etc....then slip out one day without telling your mates who've been filming you on it and climb it with some random that you've never mentioned before? And not all go for a celebratory beer together?
UKB Shark 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: I know that on the UKB thread, that was one of the lines of enquiry that they were hoping to follow up at one point to see if anything he said was true.


Alex couldnt recall the name of the gym or its location though it was in Sheffield. The ABAE had told me that the records are held at a local level. However,I don't know where the fights took place - he was Birmingham based IIRC. I gave up at this point.

Like Jack said an investigation without Simpson's co-operation is very difficult.
Tyler 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

> Firstly, Friend1 - please post under your usual forum name on controversial topics in future, it is completely unfair to name someone, when you are unwilling to be named yourself.

So just to be clear on this, 'friend1' has an account they normally post under but has chosen to go anonymous to question someone else's integrity?
krank 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I would have thought that anyone who was willing/has the mental ability to put in that ammount of training (2 years?) wouldnt be put off by a failed trip and would happily give it another go, whats another couple of months. Does anyone know how many trips he made out to try AD?
krank 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
> Errrm. Because it was easier just to say he'd done it than to go back home and train harder? Maybe?

if your willing to put in that much effort then he doesnt seem to want to take the easy option.

> Along your same line of thinking, why would you devote so much of your life training for one route, get stronger than the route, etc etc....then slip out one day without telling your mates who've been filming you on it and climb it with some random that you've never mentioned before? And not all go for a celebratory beer together?

maybe he didnt care about the film or if he friends saw him do it. However you would definately have gone for celebratory drinks, this is the most unbelievable part

PeterJuggler 03 Dec 2010
In reply to krank: Maybe he was more interested in the training than the actual climbing. I know a few people who fit into this category.
The New NickB 03 Dec 2010
In reply to krank:

I don't know enough about sport climbing to comment, but his running claims are simply not true. I am not sure why I bothered but following the last thread, checked that that every runner how ran sub 2:30 at NY in 2008 had actually run.

Remember these guys will be going for qualifying times for international competitions, they would get found out if they let someone run for them.
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Tyler:

> So just to be clear on this, 'friend1' has an account they normally post under but has chosen to go anonymous to question someone else's integrity?

Just to set things straight - that 'anonymous' poster is me. I only intended to put the first post anonymously, then got involved in the discussion and didn't bother to change it. So now we are clear.

As Jack said, this topic is controversial and complicated. It's not black and white. And the main problem is that it's divisive. 'Believers' and 'non-believers' if you like. I have good friends on both sides of the fence, close to the heart of this debate, so initially I didn't want to stir things up...but as Jack points out I shouldn't post under a different name (despite most people's user name on here not being their real name, but anyway!)

I'm not sure where this debate will go from here. I suspect it will peter out, as usual, with both sides entrenched. As long as Simpson refuses to comment on his ascents and who his belayers were, or provides proof of any of his climbing, running or boxing claims, then there is little anyone can do. And he pretty much knows that, doesn't he?
The ascents will still go down in history as they stand, and people out of the loop or those who don't follow these online discussions will still hail him as a world-class sport climber. All I'm suggesting is that maybe people should just think carefully about these claims. I mean really think about them before you make your mind up whether to believe them or not. Does the evidence really stack up?

At the end of the day, what's the difference between Simpson's claims and those made by Si O'Connor?
One of these people will go down in history as just some joker with delusions of grandeur, who tried to fool the climbing media.
The other will go down as one of the best sport climbers the UK has ever produced.
Gordon Stainforth 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd:

I suppose he could always go back and do AD 'again', as Maestri did with Cerro Torre ...
Boy 03 Dec 2010
In reply to alx:
>
> However as Steve McC has always stated Rich S is the quite little man


That is the single most unbelievable statement I've ever read about Rich Simpson! LOL etc.



To answer a couple of questions from previous posts:
The trip on which Chris Doyle made that video was at least the second trip RS had made to try the route.
RS at one point did say he had a video of Careless Torque, infact he said he had videos of the majority of his significant ascents. Various people have asked if they may see at least one of these (I think it's safe to assume his sponsors would be included among this list), all have been refused (either outright, or promised repeatedly and then later refused) for various opaque reasons. I've not come across anyone who has seen any, inluding his long term partner of the time.
I'm not passing comment on either point BTW, it's up to folk to draw their own conclusions if they so wish.
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

Where did your post go? Well I started so I'll finish.

> Shutup. You're starting to sound ridiculous.
A good start, considering.

> by implication you are suggesting that UKC has nobody that knows what they're talking about, which is complete fiction.
Am I?

> I'm not sure they would appreciate that.
I presume you mean me naming them? Dan Varian put his name to his posts. Percy B is hardly difficult to work out, and if anyone spends 5mins on UKB they'll realise who Johnnie Brown is.

> What can we meaningfully say about this that has not already been said. Short of Rich making a statement, nothing really.
That is my point in my latest post. There is nothing anyone can do now, while Simpson refuses to comment. I'm just suggesting people think carefully and make their own minds up.
loopyone03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I can sympathise with Rich Simpson, he's got nothing to prove when it comes to his climbing. I'm sure he could whip up AD on film if necessary but why should he just to keep the baying mob at bay
GrahamD 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:

Partly because he always claimed that he should be able to make a living as a top climber. Making a living from requires a different type of behaviour.
ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to friend1) I can sympathise with Rich Simpson, he's got nothing to prove when it comes to his climbing. I'm sure he could whip up AD on film if necessary but why should he just to keep the baying mob at bay

NOrmally I'd agree with you, and I don't really care much for the 'fighting for little sponsorship money' arguement.

However some of his ascents will go down as part of (significant) British climbing history, and as such should be proven - or struck from the record.
davo03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

I really don't see why you have felt the need to stir this all up again.You have not added or brought any new information to the debate. You just seem to want to rehash it all again. Also seems very bizarre to post under one name and then comment under another.

It seems to me that this has all been done to death and just ends up in a really circular argument with no end in sight. Nobody has any proof either way, just a lot of conjecture.

Cheers Dave
Gordon Stainforth 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Anonymous:

Which means you make quite sure you have at least one or two people organised to take pictures of the Brandler Hasse ascent ... or at least get hold of pictures that other people must inevitably have taken ...
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Anonymous)
>
> Which means you make quite sure you have at least one or two people organised to take pictures of the Brandler Hasse ascent ... or at least get hold of pictures that other people must inevitably have taken ...

And in this day and age MOST of us carry both a camera and video recorder with us at all times - on our phones. Proof in terms of film is easier now than ever before. We are not even limited to 24 or 36 exposures.
ChrisJD 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:

> I can sympathise with Rich Simpson, he's got nothing to prove when it comes to his climbing.

But surely he has after all that fuss over him questioning BH's solo ascents?

Live by the sword...etc etc




ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to davo:
> I really don't see why you have felt the need to stir this all up again. You have not added or brought any new information to the debate. You just seem to want to rehash it all again.
> It seems to me that this has all been done to death and just ends up in a really circular argument with no end in sight. Nobody has any proof either way, just a lot of conjecture.

Agreed. And that's what frustrates me. But I was hoping that due to the fact that he's now been dropped by his sponsors, and also the rumours I'd heard of Climb and UKC writing articles about this, that we might find out something new and hear some comment from Rich himself.
Obviously now the articles won't be appearing due to his lack of involvement, but at least we've heard something from Rich, albeit not very helpful to the debate.
As I said, I suspect this will probably fizzle out for the final time now. But at least a few more people will be slightly better informed about the facts and can make their own decisions whether to believe or not.

It just seems a shame to me that the history books will remain unchanged.

Ali
In reply to friend1:

Just to give a sense of perspective on the running claims, can anyone help me get an idea of the magnitude of a claim to have done a sub-2.30 marathon and a sub-4 minute mile in the same year (is this right? I haven't kept track; anyway, fairly closely together).

Is this something most 4-minute milers could do? Very few? None, even? Has it ever been done before?

I have no idea myself, just asking.

jcm
Gordon Stainforth 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> And in this day and age MOST of us carry both a camera and video recorder with us at all times - on our phones. Proof in terms of film is easier now than ever before. We are not even limited to 24 or 36 exposures.


Furthermore, you would be wearing brightly coloured clothing precisely so that you would show up well in any photographs ... which would also mean that anyone in the Drei Zinnen hut, or walking past the Tre Cime would see you ...
Max factor 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to friend1) I can sympathise with Rich Simpson,

I'd be in the same camp in you if he hadn't been slinging the muck himself with the whole BH debacle.

In fact, i'm still in the same camp and couldn't really care. It's up to his conscience what he chooses to claim as an ascent, but it would be ironic if he was making it all up.
The New NickB 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Very unlikely, Nate Jenkins for example, who ran 2:25:37 in the NY Marathon that RS claims to have run sub 2:30 in, has a mile pb of 4:15. Jenkins is a sub 2:15 marathon runner at his best.

The only guy I know who personally who has run a sub 4 mile has never raced beyond ten miles.
In reply to The New NickB:

Presumably the likes of Gebraselassie have done both, at least in a career? (Or has he never raced over a distance as short as a mile, maybe?)

But doing it within a short period - is that not the feat of a world-class professional athlete rather than an amateur runner?

jcm
Simon Caldwell 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

According to Wikipedia (which is always right), his best mile is 3:52.39 and best marathon 2:03:59, but these were 9 years apart. However when he took the 10,000m world record, the final mile was done in less than a second over 4 minutes!
The New NickB 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Andrew Lemoncello is probably the top British marathon runner at the moment, he switched from the 3k steeplechase in 2009 and ran 2:13:40. So he has a track speed, his mile PB is 4:03.

Gebrselassie has a mile PB of 3:52:39, but from three year before he ran his first Marathon (2:06:35). Haile is a very special athlete, one of the greatest of all time.
In reply to Toreador:

OK, so it's far to assume that great athletes could do it pretty easily. But anyone of, say, sub-international class?

Impressive about the 10k record. I always like that the 100-mile world record was set in the first section of a 24-hour race. Nothing like completing a world-class athletic performance and knowing you've got 12 hours still to go.

jcm
The New NickB 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Toreador)
>
> OK, so it's far to assume that great athletes could do it pretty easily. But anyone of, say, sub-international class?
>
No, it is fair to say that one of the greatest athletes that ever lived could probably have run both in the same year, but didn't. I doubt he could run sub 4 now on marathon training and He is just about the perfect runner.

Damo 03 Dec 2010
In reply:

Unfortunately, regardless of what Rich really did or did not do, his behaviour, as it is related above, fits *exactly* a pattern shown by other climbers and adventurers who have proven to be frauds.

- The initial claim of something notable (but no evidence),
- the refusal to name witnesses (usually strangers, not locals),
- the offering of evidence (usually photos/video) but never delivering it,
- the eventual total clamming up in silence (while remaining otherwise normal and civilised).
I could match it point-for-point with other cases, but it's late and I'm tired. And I have to be careful what I write.

From what is reported above, Rich's behaviour fits the pattern exhibited by people like Christian Stangl, Peter Treseder, Tomo Cesen, that bloke on here a few years ago who claimed to have soloed the west face of Gasherbrum 4 and others. It's so consistent it beggars belief. They all did EXACTLY those four things above (and sometimes more).

And I personally know and have climbed with Chris Stangl, so the arguments of friends that "he's just not the type" are, I'm very sorry to say, irrelevant. Ambition, money, desire and fear do strange things to people. And good people make mistakes. You never really know what's going on deep in someone's head, what is driving them.

In addition, in nearly all these instances, it's never a case of total fabrication, it's more one of degrees. It leads observers to say "but he's genuinely good, he didn't NEED to do this ...". Tales of Rich doing sequences on AD are just such observations. They're not enough. There is no doubt Peter Treseder is a very fast walker, just not as fast as he said. Tomo Cesen had certainly climbed hard at high-altitude and is on video freesoloing 8a. Chris Stangl is probably the strongest mountaineer I've ever tried to keep up with, I have no doubt he COULD solo K2 in 72hours, as he claimed. But he didn't.

One thing people may want to take into consideration. Years ago I was working with an author on a story about a guy, very (very) similar to this saga of Rich, when we were advised by a psychologist (consulted just for this) that the person in question may honestly believe he has done these things. They begin to believe their own lies. I scoffed at this as complete bollocks, but since then yet more similar scenarios have shown I was very wrong, and this is often the case. Weird but true.

Being a non-bouldering, non-running, non-boxing Australian who wouldn't get off the ground on Action Direct, II couldn't give a rat's ass about the 'first British whatever' or sponsorship pools. I understand the significance of them to those involved, but such small-game fighting about those things is pathetic and anyone who does it has taken their eye off the ball. I know because I've done it myself. I love a bit of negativity, but beyond a point it just becomes poisonous and you need to stop, purely for your own sake.

D
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> In reply:
I love a bit of negativity, but beyond a point it just becomes poisonous and you need to stop, purely for your own sake.
>
> D

That is a fine point if you don't care about climbing history. But some of us do. Some of us spend a lot of time and money on books and DVDs to do with climbing. It is bloody anal and geeky, but I love reading about the history of the sport. We love its rich history, wild tales and colourful climbing characters. I for one would be pissed off to have spent £20 on a book which later turns out to be largely bollocks. There's the rub. This goes beyond RS's ego.

This matter does need recording. Climbing history is not RS's to piss all over as he sees fit. If he climbed AD or any route and didn't seek sponsorship and recognition for it then fine. The fact is that he IS seeking publicity for his achievements. It is to be expected that he provide proof.

Someone said above "It just seems a shame to me that the history books will remain unchanged." But they will. The history books will record this controversy, and rightly so. Sure RS might not give a toss, and that is fine be most people. But extraordinary claims require extraordianry proof.

This isn't about RS's character it is about his claims. The former may well lead to 'poisonous' debate, but not the latter.
jon 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

I'm sorry to be so out of the loop, but when did the doubts start to arise and what exactly precipitated all this? I find it absolutely fascinating but had no idea that at least (some of?) his climbing claims are now believed to be frauds. How did people find out about his incredible running claims? Have I blinked and missed the whole opening volley of the story. Please, someone enlighten me.
daveje 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Another claim that came up in the original thread was a 6:25 time for his first ever 2k on a rowing machine. The UK record is 6:07 for any age as a lightweight.

Any single one of the climbing, rowing, mile and marathon claims requires a huge investment of time and dedication, and it's hard to imagine one individual being able to do all of them, at such elite levels. Especially when the activities themselves are hardly complementary - they all have quite different requirements in terms of body shape and composition, and in CV fitness.
PeterJuggler 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jon: Started with a 4 minute mile thread on here I believe. A lot of his claims can be found on his blog (still there surprisingly).

http://www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp?TeamID=40
Hat Dude 03 Dec 2010
In reply to daveje:

The huge investment of time is a factor that interests me.

At my first place of work there was a guy who made loads of claims about what he'd done; the standing joke was that he'd have to have been about 105 to have fitted it all in.
tony 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to ali k)
>
> I'm sorry to be so out of the loop, but when did the doubts start to arise and what exactly precipitated all this? I find it absolutely fascinating but had no idea that at least (some of?) his climbing claims are now believed to be frauds. How did people find out about his incredible running claims?

I don't know the history of the disputed climbs, but the running claims were made by him on his blog - the one I saw was hosted by Wild Country, which may not be online anymore.
jon 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tony and juggler:

Thanks, I'll look back.
Damo 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

You're lecturing the wrong guy about the importance of climbing history, mate. http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3174

These 'history books' you speak of? Just how many books will be written focusing on the First British Ascent of Action Direct, or claimed solo of the BH? Over-egg the pudding much?

Exposing frauds is good as a general rule, but I think you're overstating the importance of RS's claims to the historical canon of British climbing literature. If he's now not climbing anything hard, no longer sponsored, keeping quiet about it all, not making any big new claims, then I think the whole thing will fade away fast enough and in a few years be nothing more than a chuckle and a shake of the head. A few years ago people were saying the same thing as you about the tool who claimed the G4 solo, now I can't even remember what year it was, let alone his name.

I know this is a bigger deal than that, but I don't agree it's as big as you're making it out to be.
ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to daveje:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously) Another claim that came up in the original thread was a 6:25 time for his first ever 2k on a rowing machine.

That, if he's a skinny lightweight (which I presume he is), is bollocks.

(from someone who breathed rowing for 10 years )

Monk 03 Dec 2010
In reply to no-one in particular:

Just say that RS didn't climb A muerte first, who is currently credited with the second ascent?
Bill Davidson 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> A few years ago people were saying the same thing as you about the tool who claimed the G4 solo, now I can't even remember what year it was, let alone his name.
>
> I know this is a bigger deal than that, but I don't agree it's as big as you're making it out to be.


http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=211978&v=1#x3107616

Would this be the one?
Yanis Nayu 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd:
> (In reply to daveje)
> [...]
>
> That, if he's a skinny lightweight (which I presume he is), is bollocks.
>
> (from someone who breathed rowing for 10 years )

He's short, verging on squat, very muscular and very low body fat. I can't see him being more than 10st. I used to see him at Bear Rock in Coventry.
Damo 03 Dec 2010
In reply to daveje:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously) Another claim that came up in the original thread was a 6:25 time for his first ever 2k on a rowing machine. The UK record is 6:07 for any age as a lightweight.
>

The more of these 'records' tangential to climbing come up, claimed by him, the more I feel sorry for him because each one fits more and more with the pattern I mentioned above. They just can't help themselves - fast is never fast enough, further never far enough. http://www.coolrunning.com.au/ultra/treseder1.shtml

My head is spinning with deja-vous. Fun stuff!
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> You're lecturing the wrong guy about the importance of climbing history, mate. http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3174
>
> These 'history books' you speak of? Just how many books will be written focusing on the First British Ascent of Action Direct, or claimed solo of the BH? Over-egg the pudding much?
>
> Exposing frauds is good as a general rule, but I think you're overstating the importance of RS's claims to the historical canon of British climbing literature. If he's now not climbing anything hard, no longer sponsored, keeping quiet about it all, not making any big new claims, then I think the whole thing will fade away fast enough and in a few years be nothing more than a chuckle and a shake of the head. A few years ago people were saying the same thing as you about the tool who claimed the G4 solo, now I can't even remember what year it was, let alone his name.
>
> I know this is a bigger deal than that, but I don't agree it's as big as you're making it out to be.


So you think you've made climbing history? Maybe, but not any history that I am particularly interested in nor care about. Now I am interested in rock climbing history.

It wasn't meant to be a lecture just to make the case that RS has made/claimed historically significant climbing achievements. The history books that I have read are biographies and the historical sections at the back of most guides. I personally think they make great reading.

The fact is that climbing history does get broken down in to FA, first female ascent, first British/American [insert own nationality here] ascent etc...

RS's achievements have been recorded and his reputation further enhanced by his claims in running, boxing and latterly rowing and education. If this were true it would make a compelling case for an autobiography.

RS has been a 'face' on the climbing scene for what, a decade or so? He is 'ranked' as one of the UKs top climbers, if not one of the world's top climbers. I am not sure 'the tool who claimed the G4 solo' had such a high profile (but I really don't know).

It is NOT a big deal in that it is 'only' climbing - a trivial and niche indulgence. But exposing bullshit can only be a good thing in terms of climbing history.
Damo 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson:

That's 'im, he done it - Clarke Kent!
Shani 03 Dec 2010
Interesting comment from RS himself:

"I have no interest in climbing stuff with no history. I want to complete all the old hard classics which contain history. Kind of following in my hero Ben Moon's footsteps. I have no interest climbing overgraded routes like most of the new ones. I am just keen to climb the old school stuff which is properly graded."

http://www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=835
RupertD 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd:

>In reply to daveje:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously) Another claim that came up in the original thread was a 6:25 time for his first ever 2k on a rowing machine.

That claim was made by Jim Houghton, a friend of Rich's and a rower. I don't know if it was a repetition of claim made by Rich or from Jim's personal experience.
Damo 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> So you think you've made climbing history?

Ha! No, I'm very sure that I haven't and never implied that I have. But you carry on ...
tony 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
> RS has been a 'face' on the climbing scene for what, a decade or so? He is 'ranked' as one of the UKs top climbers, if not one of the world's top climbers. I am not sure 'the tool who claimed the G4 solo' had such a high profile (but I really don't know).

You're definitely over-egging the pudding here. RS hasn't been the face of anything for a decade. He achieved brief fame with a few hard sport routes a few years ago. He gave up climbing not long afterwards. I've no idea who you think ranks him as one of the UK's top climbers.
Monk 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

> RS's achievements have been recorded and his reputation further enhanced by his claims in running, boxing and latterly rowing and education. If this were true it would make a compelling case for an autobiography.
>


I have to admit that I had a look at Cambridge, and there is definitely a Richard Simpson who has started this year on a Natural Sciences course. Obviously, this is not that unusual a name, but I suspect that the education is one of the more easily verifiable claims he has made.
tony 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> [...]
>
>
> I have to admit that I had a look at Cambridge, and there is definitely a Richard Simpson who has started this year on a Natural Sciences course. Obviously, this is not that unusual a name, but I suspect that the education is one of the more easily verifiable claims he has made.

I wonder if he's joined the athletics club. Or the rowing club. Or the mountaineering club.
Shani 03 Dec 2010
In reply to tony:

True, he might not be cutting edge any more, but Wild Country have the following on their site (http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/RedChili/Sponsees1/):

"Red Chili has made a consistent effort to try and pick out and sponsor some of the best and strongest climbers around the world. So from Rich Simpson and Dave Birkett in the Uk to Stefan Glowacz in Germany and Aaron Shamy in the USA we've got a lot of top climbers helping us make some really cool shoes."

And the mighty UKC wrote "Rich Simpson is one of the World's top sport climbers..." (http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=342)

There is more to being a 'top climber' than numbers. You cannot ignore the context of the achievement.
Mick Ward 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:

Your four point pattern is an extremely interesting one. And your experience of cheating behaviour in related areas is no less interesting. You've certainly advanced the debate. Thank you.

Mick
Mowglee 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: He is definitely at Cambridge. I'm afraid I have no idea about the rest of his claims though.
Bill Davidson 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> Your four point pattern is an extremely interesting one. And your experience of cheating behaviour in related areas is no less interesting. You've certainly advanced the debate. Thank you.
>
> Mick


Agreed Mick, and it's all the more fascinating if you know someone who fits the bill.
jon 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson:

Are any of his early ascents of hard routes in the UK and France now in doubt, or is this just a recent thing?
AJM 03 Dec 2010
In reply to RupertD:

Jim posts on here occasionally, so it would probably be possible to answer that one.

6.25 is about half way between the quoted 6.07 of the best youth time ever or whatever the poster above said and a bog standard club rowing sort of time in the moderately sub 7 sort of range. I don't think saying "it's only 20 secs off the record" is that helpful unless you put into context that mere mortals can get down to 6.50 or something given a good build and some practice - admittedly first time it would be pretty unusual, but if someone showed you the technique and you practised other lengths first then who knows - all that's been quoted is "first 2k on a rowing machine", not "first time on a rowing machine" which is a gulf of difference...

I still know some people in the Cambridge Uni MC and I don't think he is involved with them.
Bill Davidson 03 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:

Sorry Jon, Who do you mean?
Dave Orsman 03 Dec 2010
In reply to The New NickB: Looking at Jonathan Wyatt, the mountain runner who's also a pretty handy track runner and marathoner. His PBs:

One Mile 4:01.51 Wanganui 16/01/1999
3000 Metres 7:57.33 Papakura 20/01/1999
5000 Metres 13:30.39 Helsinki 18/06/1997
10,000 Metres 27:56.80 Inglewood 15/02/2003
Half Marathon 1:02:37 Christchurch 02/06/2002
Marathon 2:13:00 Hamburg 27/04/2003

That's a pro career with intense time investment. Hard to imagine an amateur replicating some of those efforts in a calendar year.
MG 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Mowglee: Which is noteworthy in itself given that his place is likely to have resulted at least in part from his claimed non-academic achievments.
Mowglee 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG: Don't even go there... seriously.
jon 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson:

I'm sorry Bill, the question wasn't aimed at you - I aimlessly clicked on reply without thinking!

So, in reply to nobody in particular: What I meant was - are any of his ascents prior to his giving up climbing to pursue boxing now disputed? Or are these claims solely related to his re-emergence as a climber (and runner and rower etc... ). Action Directe, Brandler Hasse, 4MM, 2:30...

AJM 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:

I doubt it, unless you mean by the fact that they add colour to his CV. The official interest in climbing isn't enough to get him a place because of it, the athletics has nowhere near the cachet of the rowing, and to be honest there's probably enough people with the practical rowing experience and good 2k times to mean they wouldn't be terribly interested in someone with good 2k times unless they had a pedigree in a boat too.
Mike Lewis 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG: I'm quite sure that Cambridge couldn't care less about his climbing achievements, and he won't have got in unless they thought he'd do well academically.

Maybe they'd be interested if he was going to row for them, but I suspect people have tried to bluff their way in with unverified rowing achievements before, so you'd think they'd check like...
In reply to jon:

AD was prior to him giving up climbing to pursue boxing, surely?

Anyway, to answer the question there are people who have doubts about his ground-up of Careless Torque and did at the time, and also of course the fabled solo of The Zone. (a search of ukb's archives will show the odd spat with RS participating). The thread linked to earlier on went on to ask for witnesses to Hubble and Liquid Ambar, without really seeming to find them.

So I'd say that yes, in view of the difficult-to-credit nature of some recent claims, people are indeed starting to ask questions about his earlier ascents.

jcm
jon 03 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to jon)
>
> AD was prior to him giving up climbing to pursue boxing, surely?

Ah, yes!

GrahamD 03 Dec 2010
In reply to AJM:

I met someone from CUMC in Langdale during the KMF weekend and they said that RS was involved with them in some way or another - didn't really get the full context as we were both belaying at the time...
ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to RupertD:
> (In reply to ClimberEd)
>
> >In reply to daveje:
> [...]
>
> That claim was made by Jim Houghton, a friend of Rich's and a rower. I don't know if it was a repetition of claim made by Rich or from Jim's personal experience.

Then maybe it is true, but if so, he has olympic medal levels of talent - and at the higher end of that. (unless, as some said, he trained for 6 months at different distances, before trying his 2k)
ClimberEd 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Mowglee) Which is noteworthy in itself given that his place is likely to have resulted at least in part from his claimed non-academic achievments.

Doubtful.
mattmurphy 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Mowglee) Which is noteworthy in itself given that his place is likely to have resulted at least in part from his claimed non-academic achievments.

Cambridge only gives out places on academic merit, if you watch the boat race build up interviews some of the guys were worried they might not get in because they thought cambridge would assume they just wanted to come there to row.
Rich Simpson basically taught himself his A-levels in a library and then got straight A's. Regardless of how rigorous you believe those exams to be it does tell you something about the person when they have that sort of tenacity.
MG 03 Dec 2010
In reply to mattmurphy:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Cambridge only gives out places on academic merit,

There is more to the selection process than that. I don't the details but a "rounded" background is desirable.
Enty 03 Dec 2010
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Rich Simpson basically taught himself his A-levels in a library and then got straight A's. Regardless of how rigorous you believe those exams to be it does tell you something about the person when they have that sort of tenacity.

did he tell you that ;-)

e

Gordon Stainforth 03 Dec 2010
In reply to mattmurphy:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Cambridge only gives out places on academic merit, if you watch the boat race build up interviews some of the guys were worried they might not get in because they thought cambridge would assume they just wanted to come there to row.
> Rich Simpson basically taught himself his A-levels in a library and then got straight A's. Regardless of how rigorous you believe those exams to be it does tell you something about the person when they have that sort of tenacity.

Look, no one doubts his tenacity, what is troubling a lot of us is his veracity.

And that really is troubling. It upsets me a lot more than it should do (by modern standards), but it does. In fact, to me, it matters more or less more than anything else I can think of.
Eric9Points 03 Dec 2010
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to mattmurphy)
>
> [...]
>
> did he tell you that ;-)
>
> e

Yes, he must be a remarkable human being. A world class sports climber, a world class runner both at 1 mile and the marathon, a boxer and now we find he's a self educated genius.

Quite an incredible guy.
ali k 03 Dec 2010
In reply to mattmurphy & others:
> Rich Simpson basically taught himself his A-levels in a library and then got straight A's. Regardless of how rigorous you believe those exams to be it does tell you something about the person when they have that sort of tenacity.
Can people please stop discussing / criticising his A levels and university entry. No-one knows what he put on his UCAS form to get into Cambridge, and it isn't really the issue. Whatever the truth is regarding his climbing / boxing / running related claims, it has no bearing on his A levels and his future academic career. And likewise, just because you get some A's at A level doesn't mean you can climb 9a. Good on him for educating himself and getting a place at Cambridge. But that is a completely separate issue.

The running and boxing claims seem to be so ridiculous as to be not even worth considering. As does the more recent solo of Brandler-Hasse and ascent(?) of Pan Aroma. But these do serve to indicate his ability to fabricate things.

So the real issue here is setting the record straight with regards to some key ascents that will go down in British/World climbing history. Most noteably:-
- Action Directe
- A Muerte
- Liquid Ambar
- Hubble
- Careless torque
Gordon Stainforth 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

I'll have to say: there is something about the Brandler-Hasse claim that makes me feel almost physically sick. ((I was v. v. fortunate to be able to ask Alex Huber about it at Kendal c.3-5 years ago ... and when I asked him how on earth he had done it, he told me he'd laid on his bed at night for days on end, going through every single move in his mind, learning them by heart ... he even had diagrams on his ceiling. Because so many holds are dubious/loose. He had to know the route that well, move by move, before he could justify soloing it.))
Eric9Points 03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Surely it's worth knowing that we're not discussing the exploits of any old climber, this guy must be practically super human. Context is useful after all.

Did I leave out his rowing achievements as well?
AJM 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:

It's fairly irrelevant, but there's enough applicants that they can choose the people with both, but realistically a rounded personality is not going to be enough. Whether the exact achievements are true or not, the guy has a fairly rounded personality anyway, having not only got the drive to educate himself (to a large degree, from what's been said), to be a very good climber who was (even if he only did the easier stuff that there's more evidence of) better than 99% of British climbers, boxes to some level, and probably runs and rows to some level too. Some of the achievements may be fantasy, but doing that many things to any level will tick a lot more boxes than several people I knew from there...
mrjonathanr 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Mowglee) Which is noteworthy in itself given that his place is likely to have resulted at least in part from his claimed non-academic achievments.

You're implying his uni place has been gained part-fraudulently on the back of supposed sporting prowess. Nonsense
MG 03 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> You're implying his uni place has been gained part-fraudulently on the back of supposed sporting prowess. Nonsense

Well I look forward to some evidence of (even one!) of his achievments. Until then I think it quite possible his place was in part the result of fruadulent claims, which is pretty unpleasant given that another deserving candidate will have lost out.

Tam Stone03 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: You have a bit of a cheek trying to 'moderate' after starting this thread and under an assumed name. You have dug yer blade in so step back.

For what it is worth, I live close to Springhill boxing club in Shotts and know the coaches well. I enquirer about his outlandish boxing record months back, nobody in his area has heard tell of him. Unbeaten fighters are noticed and talked about. I have emailed Boxing News as they cover ABA boxing.

There was a post mentioning RS (either here on Ukb) boasting about his boxing earnings, as an amatuer!!! This has to be his most bizarre claim. Anyone even remotely connected to boxing would call him a liar for that one. Even Amir Khan struggled to get paid as an amatuer and many others have turned pro early due to lack of funding. Madness. Anything slipping from his mouth must be taken with copious salt.
cat22 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to mattmurphy)
> [...]
>
> There is more to the selection process than that. I don't the details but a "rounded" background is desirable.

The vast majority of the academics who are involved in the selection process at Cambridge would not know the difference between a 9a and a VDiff. Sure, having other interests is useful, but there isn't a box on the UCAS form for your lead grade...
Dave C 03 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to mrjonathanr)
> [...]
I think it quite possible his place was in part the result of fruadulent claims, which is pretty unpleasant given that another deserving candidate will have lost out.

I think there's as much chance that he's studying at Cambridge as there is of him soloing the Brandler-Hasse.

stevieo10 03 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: My god I thought the northern mobsters were bad enough on UKB, they're just jealous that RS isn't from or resides in sheffield.. but to listen to you ponces on this forum bleating on about how he doesn't deserve to get into caimbridge is even more pathetic.. stop whinging and start climbing!
Null 04 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to ali k)
>
> I'll have to say: there is something about the Brandler-Hasse claim

Personally never heard of the boy, so no particular axe to grind. Out of curiosity I read his description of the Dolomites/Brandler-Hasse trip. Just on the basis of the text I immediately got the impression it was all made up - rather blatantly. (Just an impression, although reading things is my job, more or less).
It's amazing that sponsors hand out cash on the basis of "cultural" products on this level.
And it is very sad when young people get caught up in a pathetic fame game generated by our nauseating "celebrity driven" society.
If the accusations against him are true, then he is certainly the main victim, or more precisely, the one who will actually suffer as a consequence of his actions.

If anyone doubts that people are capable of lying all the time, directly, in public and insisting that people should accept their word for what is quite obviously not true, then tune into Italian TV and listen to Mr. Berlusconi.
Again, the only unbelievable thing is that ... some people believe he is sincere.
ericinbristol 04 Dec 2010
The Wild Country website has photos by Alex Messenger stating that they show RS on the FA of A Muerte
http://wld.brlive.co.uk/Community/Gallery/RichSimpsonSiurana1/

I know that supposed FA photos are sometimes staged post-FA, maybe this was/was not one of those?
jon 04 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:

It could be argued that 'first ascent' could include the working of the route prior to THE ascent. Those photos do have an effortless look about them which could indicate that it may not be THE ascent... or not, of course. Alex could say, I suppose.
Morgan Woods 04 Dec 2010
In reply to Juggler13:
> (In reply to jon) Started with a 4 minute mile thread on here I believe. A lot of his claims can be found on his blog (still there surprisingly).
>
> http://www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp?TeamID=40

bit of a funny one that....if you had no idea about this thread it might seem like he's trying to big himself up as an "Alpinist" without having done any actual alpine routes. In the context of this controversy it raises lots of questions. It seems a bit weird to mention an "arduous drive" and "arduous descents" in the Dolomites....(are they really esp if you can run 2.30 marathons?) and almost nothing about the climb itself done in a style and time which would make it one of the sends of the year.

The way he lead solo'd it also raises questions.....did he have to know the exact length of each pitch so as to be sure to arrive at each belay or use a shunt or have a whole 30-40m of rope out all the way? was this his only pro-or was he also clipping the pegs as he went (otherwise it would be a possible factor 2 onto the belay?)

Also strange not to mention who he teamed up with for Panorama (random tall dude in photo?).

"Worthy of a final mention is the fact that I hope to be working with some of the country’s leading sports´ scientists, as well as the watchmaker, Suunto, in order to increase my lactic threshold and prepare myself physically for my alpine goals." - and as we all know if you're gonna climb hard you need the right watch!

And is Jon Griffith really infamous?
banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: not ready the entire thread but as someone who has seen rich climb on a few occasions i dont doubt for one minute that he is good enough to do any of the routes he has claimed
KTT04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth: And Andy Murray is good enough to have won several grand slams.

Don't you think with all this interest if he had any videos or people who were prepared to say 'yeah I saw him do x' then he'd be splashing this all over the web?
jon 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:

> not ready the entire thread but as someone who has seen rich climb on a few occasions i dont doubt for one minute that he is good enough to do any of the routes he has claimed

I don't doubt he's good enough either - and until I saw this thread yesterday I never gave it a thought. However, having ploughed back through the linked threads and blogs, there are so many things that just don't add up - notably the running ones. I'd love for him to just come back at everyone with enough absolute proof to shut them up, but he doesn't seem to want to. If there wasn't that niggling little worm of doubt, he shouldn't really have to either, should he...?
bull2010face 04 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

In light of these revelations it's interesting to read McClure's article on RS in CLIMB issue Oct 08.
John2 04 Dec 2010
In reply to shark: 'Alex couldnt recall the name of the gym or its location though it was in Sheffield'

Well the Steve Maclure article does name the gym - it was Woodseats Amateur Boxing Club, Sheffield. Does anyone have any contacts there to verify Simpson's achievements?
Tam Stone04 Dec 2010
In reply to jon: Its not a little niggling doubt though. If he had made his claims about running he, like the villains in scooby doo, could have gotten away with it but the boxing claims are truly absurd! You do not fly under the radar with 18 wins and a potential place on Rob McCrakens Olympic squad. The boxing claims are the easiest to prove or disprove. All boxers have a card, which lists their weight class and record, with opponents names etc. This card is held by your coach, normally. If he has boxed he could simply produce the card. Of course he so far above reproach in his own mind that he feels he does not have to.
banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
>I'd love for him to just come back at everyone with enough absolute proof to shut them up, but he doesn't seem to want to.

ive not got photographic evidence or witnesses to alot of boulder problems ive done and if someone doubted me it wouldnt bother me at all and at a guess thats probably why rich isnt commenting,because he knows what he's done and doesnt care if other believe him or not
Postmanpat 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
> > it wouldnt bother me at all and at a guess thats probably why rich isnt commenting,because he knows what he's done and doesnt care if other believe him or not

Are you a sponsored climber who claims ground breaking ascents for publication in mags etc?

Charlie_Zero 04 Dec 2010
In reply to John2:

According to the ABA website, in January 2010 Woodseats ABC and Sharrow ABC merged and became Sheffield City Amateur Boxing Club.
banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
> [...]
>
> Are you a sponsored climber who claims ground breaking ascents for publication in mags etc?

nope and neither is he anymore
Postmanpat 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> nope and neither is he anymore


And neither am I which is why I don't feel the need to prove my solo ascent of the Eiger direct in 23 minutes. I'm so good I'm above all that.
Bill J 04 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

My, my, I didn't expect to lump him in with Medwards and Si Conman.

Wonders never cease.
Tam Stone04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth: Your nothing more than an average climber, why would anyone ever ask you to verify your modest climbing exploits? What a strange post you make in the context of the thread.
jon 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
> >I'd love for him to just come back at everyone with enough absolute proof to shut them up, but he doesn't seem to want to.
>
> ive not got photographic evidence or witnesses to alot of boulder problems ive done and if someone doubted me it wouldnt bother me at all and at a guess thats probably why rich isnt commenting,because he knows what he's done and doesnt care if other believe him or not

No, nor have I. But then I'm not claiming to run a 2:30 marathon and a 4MM or anything out of the ordinary. If I was - and had done it - I'd expect to be asked (and certainly expect to be doubted) but I'd make sure I had the proof. In a way it doesn't matter if it's untrue. It doesn't change our lives. But it changes our sport. I hope you're right.

Eric9Points 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
> >I'd love for him to just come back at everyone with enough absolute proof to shut them up, but he doesn't seem to want to.
>
> ive not got photographic evidence or witnesses to alot of boulder problems ive done and if someone doubted me it wouldnt bother me at all and at a guess thats probably why rich isnt commenting,because he knows what he's done and doesnt care if other believe him or not

Well if he goes after sponsorship on the basis of what he's claimed to have done then he should expect that someone might ask him for some proof. After all he is asking for money on the basis of his claims. If his claims are false then technically he is guilty of fraud is he not?

Why doesn't he just say who belayed him on Action Directe? In fact why hasn't the belayer popped up on some forum or other to say that he did? I'm pretty sure I would have done if someone I'd climbed with had been accused of being a liar.

banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> (In reply to beastofackworth) Your nothing more than an average climber, why would anyone ever ask you to verify your modest climbing exploits? What a strange post you make in the context of the thread.


oh how scathing,im seriously hurt <big wide yawn>
Postmanpat 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to Tam Stone)
> [...]
>
>
> oh how scathing,im seriously hurt <big wide yawn>

But it is a fair point.A dispute over the scoring of a goal in a game with jumpers for goalposts is only of relevance to the people playing.A dispute over a goal in the FA cup final matters in the wider context of football.

banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to Postmanpat: not to me it doesnt as i dont follow football.there are pictures of rich simpson on action direct and there is more video footage of him on it than Wolfgang Güllich but do you doubt him?how many photos are there of ben on hubble?theres only linked footage of sharma on jumbo love,do you doubt him?
Postmanpat 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) not to me it doesnt as i dont follow football.

Not relevant. Think about it.

there are pictures of rich simpson on action direct and there is more video footage of him on it than Wolfgang Güllich but do you doubt him?how many photos are there of ben on hubble?theres only linked footage of sharma on jumbo love,do you doubt him?

If Gullich or Sharma claimed to clearly nonsensical things in other spheres of life,yes I would wonder about the veracity of some of their climbing achievements.

Tam Stone04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth: Hey, it's true. Get over yersel. This is about world class bluffing.

I do agree that RS is a talented climber and I only doubt him because of the boxing claims due to the fact that my nephews and pals box, I am a liflong boxing fan and have subscribed to boxing news for around 20 years. This is a weekly publication that covers pro and amateur boxing extensively and Ive never seen or heard tell of him. With the record he claims he would be ranked, which he is not nor ever has been. 18 wins is fantastic, I would have loved to be following his boxing and climbing and when I mentioned it to the boys, they came back to me saying that he was unheard of. That was in the summer. Now all this. Running, rowing, boxing all world class level stuff, I can't imagine anyone in his position nit simply verifying the claims.
jkarran 04 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

It strikes me the NYM results are trivial to verify. In 2009 (the year I presume RS ran) there are precisely 14 finishers with Times between 2:29* and 2:31. All of them started from the front of the field (gun time == chip time). So... which of them is RS's psudonym?

*It's not likely to be faster than 2:29 is it given he's reported 2:30

The search is easy if anyone is interested or if it was 2008 or 2010 http://web2.nyrrc.org/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/mar-programs/archive/archive_search.html

For the sake of an article I'd have thought you'd be able to verify all those 14 were who they said they were and actually ran with a couple of weeks of emailing. What would that prove... he ran without a chip maybe but it'd at least open up a new question to be answered

Also, there are other 4min plus a little bit times listed in the UKC article. Where did he run those? Ok, it's not the mythical 4mm but it'd be a lead, there can't be many 4:02 or 4:03 miles run a year by men called Simpson.

I don't really care whether he's a fantasist, delusional, flicking a big 'f*** you!' at the uk climbing media or simply private and disinterested but others will and when it comes to recording the history of the routes he's done it does matter. Is he a massively impressive, historically unparalleled sporting giant or a strong climber with a problem? I've no idea.

I hope it's not all one big house of cards and delusion for his sake and for that of his friends, partners and employers who've stood behind him. Imagining it were it me being discussed I can totally see the appeal in saying nothing but I think ultimately I'd rather have a reputation I could trade on rather than a trail of accusations following me wherever I went.

jk
banned profile 7404 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> (In reply to beastofackworth) Hey, it's true. Get over yersel. This is about world class bluffing.
>
>
get over myself?over what?im happy with my climbing so couldnt care what anyone else things and have doen enough competing to know where my abilities stand in relation to most others tyvm,i was giving an example that most people probably dont have photo/video/witness testimony to back up their hardest climbs,infact lots of the top climbers go back on routes for photo shoots days/weeks/months after climbing them.
i personally dont care about the running or boxing claims,im on ukclimbing,im here about the climbing and as a climber rich simpson to me is well capable and motivated to climb any of the things he has done without need to fabricate it.
Ackbar 04 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: According to this article, Edu Marin got the second (first) ascent of A muerte (see bottom of article).

http://www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1430
JJL 04 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xlZO95FljUUJ:www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp%3F...

Only cached now - the original is taken down; looks like he's gone from Scarpa too.

And that piece reads like a kid's homework - just completely unconvincing.

Rich, if you're reading this, I hope you manage to put yourself back together....but the game's up.
3 Names 04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:


Well lets put it this way. If I was about to lose my income because of a load of lies I could easily disprove, I think I would disprove them.
Tam Stone04 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth: Ok fair enough, I perhaps picked you up wrong. I hope to be proved uninformed and hasty as I did have a lot of respect for the guy, although it would seem the burden of proof is on him. I've nothing else constructive to add so am gone.
mark s 04 Dec 2010
Any record of his ascents either first or repeats need clearing from climbing history unless he can prove otherwise.
A few years ago when he was doubted over some ascents he conviently said he'd taken up boxing and was studying to be a lawer.
Its a real shame all this has happened because he is undoubtly a very strong climber,probabily not as strong as he wanted.
scooott 04 Dec 2010
In reply to mark s: Whenever I read about his claims he always says that he wants the doubters to go to him personally and ask to see the evidence. Since he has videos of some of his hard ascents.

So hasn't anyone actually done that? Or did his dog eat the evidence?
Damo 04 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

I just read RS' on Scarpa. Interesting that he has bothered to include photos of himself climbing easy icefalls, but no self-pic or any other shot of him actually *climbing* on the BH. None at all? His description of the BH solo (and PanAroma) are notable for being quite wordy and containing all the stock phrases of climbing reporting, but conspicuously devoid of any actual first-hand specific detail of any actual move or sequence or pitch. No simple, original words to prove that he was actually there climbing it. Just general descriptions that could have been gleaned from elsewhere, and statements that he did each bit.

As I said right at the start of my first post on this thread, regardless of whether he did these things or not - *and I'd love to have it proven that he did* - the way he is behaving, in a 'professional' sense, is creating the appearance of deception and mimicking that of other fraudsters - regardless of whatever the truth may be.

And nice to see in his first post he describes himself as ".. a world class athlete ..". Having your sponsors' marketing department foist that on you in press releases and marketing material is one thing. Saying it yourself,about yourself, regardless of being unable to prove it, is just silly.

D
Banned User 77 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Orsman: Not sure Wyatt is relevant...he's a mountain runner. Incredible trainer, awesome runner, but only occasionally hits the road hard. Probably the nicest guy in athletics.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this subject in general. I have my view on this which is in line with many I guess, but I won't call the guy a liar until I see or hear otherwise.

TBH I see his claims as unsubstantiated...and will leave it at that.
Banned User 77 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
>
>
> As Alex says above he is a super strong and gifted climber and I hope to see many more great ascents from him.
>
>

That's why I have doubts that it could all be bull. But he's clearly a hugely gifted athlete. Without his past history I'd be more inclined to call him out as a fraud, as it is I think we just have to call it unsubstantiated.

But he has done some great things so I don't think we can simply dismiss such claims...doubt for sure..
lmarenzi 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

From the Sportiva Blog: "I also felt quietly excited when I caught a glimpse of the Tre Cima on my way into Cortina."

Hmm. The Tre Cime really are a unique and unforgetable sight. From the north. From the south (and Cortina is in the SW of the Tre Cime) they are an indistinguishable pile of choss. In any case it is not possible to see them at all from Cortina or anywhere near there due to the intervening mountains.

As an aside, the town that you can see from the summit of the Cima Grande is Auronzo di Cadere with its long, picturesque lake.

daveje 05 Dec 2010
In reply to scooott:
> (In reply to mark s) Whenever I read about his claims he always says that he wants the doubters to go to him personally and ask to see the evidence. Since he has videos of some of his hard ascents.
>
> So hasn't anyone actually done that? Or did his dog eat the evidence?

Jack Geldard posted earlier in the thread:

"Rich has politely refused to answer any question, to name any belayer or to comment at all on any matter. He has been friendly, courteous and polite. But he makes no comment."
bouldery bits 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

It does seem odd that an academic of all people would refuse to provide any evidence.
mrjonathanr 05 Dec 2010
In reply to bouldery bits: I think there's a bit more to deserving that tag than being an undergrad.
Niek 05 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr: Agreed, academic is pushing it a tad.
Morgan Woods 05 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to friend1)
>
>
> And that piece reads like a kid's homework - just completely unconvincing.

that's a bit unfair






to school kids.
SARS 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Morgan Woods:
> (In reply to JJL)
> [...]
>
> that's a bit unfair
>
> to school kids.

lots of bile on this thread regardless...

dustbuddy 05 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:

I wouldn't be surprised if some of RS's sponsers are looking to recoup some of the monies they have invested in him over the past couple of years. Presumably they would not have sponsored him without RS's statements in relation to his alleged achievements.
jkarran 05 Dec 2010
In reply to dustbuddy:

> I wouldn't be surprised if some of RS's sponsers are looking to recoup some of the monies they have invested in him over the past couple of years.

I would! I think most will be content to quietly cut and run. Anything else risks generating some seriously bad publicity.
andy 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jkarran: And do outdoor companies really give that much money to sponsored climbers anyway? I guess it's more than the occasional free pair of boots (elderly lakes afficionados will remember Billy's route "Asolo" on Dover...) but it's not millions of squids per year, is it?
bull2010face 05 Dec 2010
In reply to andy:

Why exactly has he been dropped by his sponsors?
Muttly 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: May have been covered earlier in the thread, I've been reading it over several days: What does Chris Doyle say about the ascent of A.D. the article on UK suggests he saw the full climb does it not? I'm more curious than concerned.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=49723
ali k 05 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> In light of these revelations it's interesting to read McClure's article on RS in CLIMB issue Oct 08.
Is that the article where he says something like "It's not his feats on rock that are impressive, but his feats of strength in the gym - like number of one-armers etc"?
I remember reading it at the time and thought it was an odd thing to say, considering McClure hasn't climbed Action Directe, A Muerte, Liquid Ambar, and at the time hadn't done Hubble. Or maybe he knew something about Rich back then?

> Why exactly has he been dropped by his sponsors?
As stated a few times above, he provided insufficient evidence to back up his recent claimed on-sights of Brandler-Hasse, The Fisch, and probably more importantly the solo of Brandler-Hasse, despite them asking for something repeatedly. Strangely enough, one happy snap taken with some random tall person on top of some unidentifiable peak presumably in the dolomites isn't proof enough...
ali k 05 Dec 2010
In reply to puppythedog:
> What does Chris Doyle say about the ascent of A.D. the article on UK suggests he saw the full climb does it not?
Chris wasn't there when Simpson claims to have done it.
Dominion 05 Dec 2010
In reply to mark s:

> Its a real shame all this has happened because he is undoubtly a very strong climber,probabily not as strong as he wanted.

Nothing to do with the main thrust of this thread, but...


I've only ever seen him climb indoors at The Bear Rock, and watching him climb was quite awesome. And there would often be quite a few people sitting and watching him climb the hard routes up the competition wall. I say climb, but "breeze up" would be the better description.

Not many people would come in cold, to a wall, and sprint up a f7c as their warm up climb, and make it look completely effortless.

That does not, of course, prove his claims of hard outdoor routes.

But he is a very good, top grade sport climber, and I haven't personally seen anyone* climb the hard routes on the competition wall (Bear Rock) as effortlessly and elegantly as I've seen Rich Simpson skim up them.


Just like to add to this character assassination thread, as this is one hard climber I've been in the same room as, climbing**, and this is something that I do think needs saying...

||-)



* No offence alx, I've seen you climb the hard routes there, too, but RS made them look easier, sorry!


** I was possibly warming up on an F5+ and peaking at an F6b+ - RS warmed up on an F7c, and made it look easy...
TobyA 05 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

> As stated a few times above, he provided insufficient evidence to back up his recent claimed on-sights of Brandler-Hasse, The Fisch, and probably more importantly the solo of Brandler-Hasse, despite them asking for something repeatedly. Strangely enough, one happy snap taken with some random tall person on top of some unidentifiable peak presumably in the dolomites isn't proof enough...

I read the Scarpa blog posts today - it seems in retrospect very odd writing "I" about all those ascents as if the second didn't exist. Even if your second only seconded the entire route I still couldn't think about doing such big routes except of as a "we". He also claims in the posts to have done a couple classic North Faces but is coy about which. Of course lots of people solo something like the Droites, but that is still a top effort especially for someone new to alpinism.

It's all very sad, I had never heard the doubts about him before this thread but it does all look very Walter Mitty-esque now. And if he did do everything he said, then just for the lack of being willing to answer peoples' questions he ends up with people like me who are totally neutral on the issue thinking he is a fantasist rather than one of the best climbers of his generation.
jim hughes 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: Give the guy a break nobody is getting anywhere with this, If Rich wants to stay quiet then thats that. Innocent until proven guilty. So as it stands he has done some very hard climbing and everyone knows this.
Mike Nolan 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: The thing is, why should he be 'innocent until proven guilty'?

If I claimed to have climbed AD, would I be 'innocent until proven guilty' without a single piece of proof? I doubt I'd be taken seriously.

Saying that though, I do want his claims to be true (the climbing ones anyway) as I think it is an inspiration to see somebody climb so hard after relatively short amount of time partaking in the sport and it really would show what you can do if you put your mind to it. However, the lack of proof really isn't doing his case any favours!
John2 05 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: 'Is that the article where he says something like "It's not his feats on rock that are impressive, but his feats of strength in the gym - like number of one-armers etc"?'

He says, 'I’ve climbed with people who are stronger than me, some are better than me (but not by much – unless I’m abroad where it’s quite normal...) and I’m not often left in awe. Normally, when I’m really cranking, pulling down hard on those little holds, I feel like I’m doing enough to be as good as I can be. But am I? Are any of us putting so much effort in that we reach our true potential? One man who gets as close as any I’ve known is Richard Simpson'
ali k 05 Dec 2010
In reply to John2:
Thanks for that. Definitely read that somewhere so I must be thinking of a different article by McClure.
fred99 05 Dec 2010
In reply to dustbuddy:
I would personally hope they go after him for obtaining money under false pretences - i.e. Fraud.

I looked into him regarding the supposed sub-4 minute mile.
There was no such meeting even around when, or at the track he claimed it to be.
I know knowledgeable and influential people both at the alleged track and his home area - they had never heard of him.
He was supposed to have been pacing others (who beat him), and still ran sub-4.
His time would have made him fastest briton in the world that year, let alone his faster mates, and all would have been (conservatively) in the top 20.

Now how come NONE of them feature in the world's fastest lists, NONE of them have complained, and NONE of them have been going for the sponsorship available from companies in the running line - which would have been worth a hell of a lot more than climbing gear companies have given him.
The amount earned at Grand Prix's is quite something.

Reason - it's a complete load of b*ll*cks.

He has lied through his teeth regarding a sub-4 minute mile.

So, do I believe anything else he says - NO, not unless I see some evidence. His word is worth diddly squat.
In reply to friend1:

Let's face it, as it stands no-one believes him other than his mates and others who want to believe him as an article of faith. And it's going to stay that way until he produces some proof. It's not calling him a liar; it's the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I don't think there's much more one can say.

jcm
fred99 05 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

As for a sub-4 minute mile and a marathon under 2:30 in one year - not necessarily such a difficult item.

I know someone (personally - I used to race against him) who won the Chicago marathon (in 2:11:25) in 1989, and then ran 3,56.5 for the mile later that year at Crystal Palace.

Name: Paul Davies-Hale.

He was on the TV for the mile (BBC or ITV, I forget which), and the marathon was fairly public as well.
fred99 05 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I for one AM calling him a liar.
I'd like him to try and contest this claim.

He won't because he hasn't got a leg to stand on.
In reply to fred99:

Thanks; interesting.

A quick google throwa up this link, which suggests he was perhaps an unusually versatile runner.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/little-yips-that-make-the-character-more-likeable-741477....

Still, evidently by no means impossible even for someone who isn't Gebrselassie.

jcm
Charlie_Zero 05 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

> Name: Paul Davies-Hale.

An amazing running all rounder judging by the performance stats that you can find using:

http://www.thepowerof10.info/pothome.aspx
fred99 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan_2468:

A nice bloke as well. Coaches youngsters now.
Damo 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to friend1) Give the guy a break nobody is getting anywhere with this, If Rich wants to stay quiet then thats that. Innocent until proven guilty. So as it stands he has done some very hard climbing and everyone knows this.

No. He's clearly been given more breaks than he deserves, and apparently his sponsors now agree. If someone wants to quietly go about their business climbing for themselves and still climb Action Directe or solo the BH then good on them and it's none of our business what they do. But if someone proclaims themselves a 'world class athlete', as RS has done, rents our eyeballs in magazines and expects the rest of us to pay for his sponsorship through our gear purchases then the least he could do is deign to play the game he wants to be seen to be winning.

As for getting nowhere, I think it's been quite an illuminating discussion for some of the climbing community to have. It's a development of climbing as a whole that pretenders will try to game the media and we now need more hard proof of big claims if people want to gain from them. Sad but true. If RS has not climbed these things - and I repeat that I really hope he has - then he has exploited the trust and good faith of the climbing community, his sponsors and his friends. He has spat in the face of a community that traditionally took climbers at their word, who trusted him and acclaimed him and rewarded him. And he can't compromise his mighty ideals to produce just one bloody photo or piece of footage to irrefutably *prove* beyond any doubt that he actually did just ONE of these big things he's claiming?

There are much worse words for people like that than 'world class athlete'. :-/

Mattyk 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: Alex Huber on Brandler Hasse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96JIohKsQVY

Very impressive! But maybe something taken away from it if it's a trade solo as the claims made are true.

Re: Richard's Blog:
Rich says it took him an hour to get down.. Good effort! My experience descending from Comici was that it was a total ball ache.
And i don't remember seeing Tre Cime in all its glory from Cortina. Had to pay a ridiculous toll and walk for an hour to the base.

The polint is Alex deserves the sponsorship - he has 'earned' it, i'm now going to buy a pair of Adidas trainers. I was gonna buy Scarpas but without the video - they're not getting my money.


jim hughes 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo: I just think it a bit one sided. Here someone is having there life ripped to bits by the UKC hoards and they are not even here to defend themselves and probably dont even know that they are been called a liar and cheat on a Sunday evening.

Dont reply to me about media and proof because I dont care, It is a real person afterall so should be treated with some dignity no matter what they have or havent done.
lowersharpnose 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:

Thanks for the Peter Treseder links, I had never heard of him before.

A fascinating comparison of bullshit addiction.

derico 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I know some of you have been supporting Rich and this comment is not you. I think it is disgraceful how so many of you could be so nasty about someone you probably have never met. Just because we won't tell you who has belayed him on these climbs, it doesn't mean that he hasn't climbed the routes.

I happen to know for certain after a few years of pretty much no training, in 2009 Rich bashed out an F8c in a sesh having only played on it a little the year before. AND MY MATE BELAYED HIM SO THIS DID HAPPEN!!

The guy climbs for himself, not to prove anything to anyone. Why do we feel the need to crush all his achievements?
Dave
Mr Lopez 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to Damo) I just think it a bit one sided. Here someone is having there life ripped to bits by the UKC hoards and they are not even here to defend themselves and probably dont even know that they are been called a liar and cheat on a Sunday evening.
>
> Dont reply to me about media and proof because I dont care, It is a real person afterall so should be treated with some dignity no matter what they have or havent done.

Putting aside that he's most likely aware of the thread, i agree with you 100%


Si dH 05 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:
I met Rich in Siurana, I think the week after he did A Muerte (assuming he did). Ive no idea now who he said belayed him, but I think he had been climbing a bit with Toni Arbones, and he had a mate with him called Rob (I think. No idea of his surname. All I can remember is he had longish hair and massive forearms).
Siurana is a pretty small place, there weren't that many people there, and as I say he stayed for a few days after he had done it. I can't understand how he would have kept that ruse up in a place like that, unless of course he had someone in on it completely as his alibi to say he'd belayed him. It was pretty big news when he did it and everyone would have been asking him about it. Very strange though that he apparently now doesn't name his belayer? I'm sure he must have done at the time.
I still believe him for the moment, but only on the basis that he seemed a really genuine guy and that he was incredibly strong. I'm also pretty sure my mate Jim believed him, who had known him since they were kids. Can't say any more than that.
Damo 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to Damo) I just think it a bit one sided. Here someone is having there life ripped to bits by the UKC hoards and they are not even here to defend themselves and probably dont even know that they are been called a liar and cheat on a Sunday evening.

Because they don't have the internet in Cambridge, eh? RS has posted on UKC before, to question the veracity of another climber's ability, no less! He knows where it is. It's one-sided because he chooses to leave it that way.

Your concern for his wellbeing is genuinely admirable, but if he is truly in a bad way then all he needs to do to shut us up is produce one tiny bit of hard proof, or the testament of one of the secret belayers derico mentions above, and all will be fine. Surely it must be so easy to ease his pain at being treated so unfairly. On the other hand, if he did the things, doesn't have any proof and doesn't care about that, and truly does not care what people say about him, then none of this will trouble him at all and your concern for his emotional state is unnecessary ..

>
> Dont reply to me about media and proof because I dont care, It is a real person afterall so should be treated with some dignity no matter what they have or havent done.

Good for you, but nearly 200 posts on this thread indicates it's not just about you, Jim. RS has been treated with respect for at least five years, but can't seem to find any himself for those sponsors who supported him.

TobyA 05 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:

> The guy climbs for himself, not to prove anything to anyone.

He was climbing, and blogging, for his sponsors. That makes the situation rather different. Mr Simpson also publicly accused another well known climber of being a liar, so again - that makes it rather different.
lmarenzi 05 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:

"I happen to know for certain after a few years of pretty much no training, in 2009 Rich bashed out an F8c in a sesh having only played on it a little the year before."

Hmmm. Best ever redpoint 9a, then a few years of pretty much no training, and then an unfamiliar 8c in a single session. So after a FEW YEARS of pretty much NO TRAINING, he is still climbing at essentially the same grade?

It would of course be really interesting to hear directly from your mate about the details of the 2009 8c ascent on this forum, because up to now there really has not been anyone on here who has held his rope on a hard ascent.

Love your profile page btw.

Luca
jim hughes 05 Dec 2010
When simple hobbies go wrong,yet another case of web induced crap whether true or not, bring back the 90´s. Im sick of all this who did what when and reading about the same old people climbing the same old routes. Whos with me, lets boycott this site and maybe climbing in the UK will return to what should be a fun activity. I hate to see people being character assasinated all the time on here.
Rob15 05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: I agree!
Tam Stone05 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: I'm with you Jim! Let's change the world!!
jim hughes 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Rob15: cheers!
jim hughes 05 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone: It has to start somewhere. Theres going to be a revulution infact there has to be, If this is what the future of climbing holds then its looking bleak.
Graeme Alderson 06 Dec 2010
Damo 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to Tam Stone) ... Theres going to be a revulution

Can we follow it on Twitter or will we have to bookmark the blog?
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo: If I knew what you meant then maybe! By the way I meant revolution not revulution.
Graeme Alderson 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:

The revolution will not be televised, not be televised, not be televised.

The revolution will be live.
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson: one can only hope.
Minneconjou Sioux 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> The revolution will not be televised, not be televised, not be televised.
>
> The revolution will be live.

But it could still be televised - right?
Dave C 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:
The revolution will be on a delayed broadcast!


Doesn't quite have the same ring...
Mick Ward 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

> It is a real person afterall so should be treated with some dignity no matter what they have or havent done.

Agree.

Mick
TobyA 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> But it could still be televised - right?

I'm hoping for live streaming so I can watch on my computer.

Jim, I don't know how old you are but I started climbing before the internet had any impact and things struck me as just as gossipy then. In Scotland there were all sorts of rumours of who abbed routes in summer checking out crux tool placements etc. for instance.
Tom Last 06 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

Down with this sort of thing!
Damo 06 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:
>... before the internet had any impact and things struck me as just as gossipy then.

Absolutely. Go through the comments deep within the Himalayan Database and see how many ascents have been doubted or disputed by other parties. Maestri, Cesen, Mesili and dozens of others all lied and got called on it long before the internet.
Phil Payne 06 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

I don't understand why the UKC mods have allowed this thread to continue. It's not really fair on Mr Simpson and the last thread like this was closed down by the mods, so why let this one continue?

This is what Jack Geldard wrote at the end of the last thread:

"There have been some very serious accusations made, and also some speculation.

I have archived this thread for now, so that it will not accept further replies, until we (The UKC Team) have discussed it further."

What has changed that they now think that this thread is acceptable?

I don't know about the running or the climbing, but with regards to the rowing, in the previous thread Jim Houghton said that the rowing effort WAS witnessed.

Al Evans 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo: The McCallum affair at Gogarth actually made a half page article in The Times
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=235364

DaveHK 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to friend1)
>
> I don't understand why the UKC mods have allowed this thread to continue.

Because they value freedom of speech and don't want to be accused of denying it?
Chris the Tall 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> The revolution will not be televised, not be televised, not be televised.
>
> The revolution will be live.

The revolution will be a podcast
krank 06 Dec 2010
In reply to DaveHK:
classic.
TobyA 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> It's not really fair on Mr Simpson

It sounds like Jack was very fair and gave Rich an opportunity to provide evidence or even just restate his claims and deny the questions, but he choose not say anything.

I think after having publicly questioning another climber's record, and making his extraordinary claims, particularly through his (at the time) sponsors, then there is nothing unfair about people asking questions. If he wants to dispel doubts he could very easily just say who he did some of these amazing climbs with. I don't think anyone would doubt him at all if someone comes forward and say "I belayed him on his redpoint of Action Direct" for example.
MattDTC 06 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:


I belayed him on his redpoint of Action Direct

There you go...all done and dusted!
TobyA 06 Dec 2010
In reply to MattDTC: Great. Thanks Matt. I'm sure in stepping forward you have saved Rich a lot of heartache. As Mr. Simpson himself seem a bit coy over the details about these things (besides going back onto the route to 'recreate' the redpoint to get photos for his sponsors obviously), you should write down your memories of that really important climb, as it's an important step in UK climbing history.
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:
> I think it is disgraceful how so many of you could be so nasty about someone you probably have never met.
It's not a case of being nasty to anyone. This isn't some childish schoolyard bullying. No-one on this thread has made a single negative remark about his personality or character. In fact, several people have come on and said what a nice guy he is, and I'll second that. I have met him, and I thought he came across as a very decent friendly person.

This is about trying to find out the truth about some highly dubious claims that have been made, and ensuring that climbing history is accurate.

> I happen to know for certain after a few years of pretty much no training, in 2009 Rich bashed out an F8c in a sesh having only played on it a little the year before. AND MY MATE BELAYED HIM SO THIS DID HAPPEN!!
So who was that? If you want to help constructively towards this discussion then maybe you could ask your mate to give some details about this ascent. Otherwise, your information is pretty worthless.

> The guy climbs for himself, not to prove anything to anyone.
Proclaiming yourself as a world-class athlete in several disciplines and listing your achievements all over the Internet doesn't really tie in with this modest 'climbing for yourself' attitude you talk about. If you want to see someone who really does climb for themselves and not prove anything to anyone then look to Ryan for that, or Bransby, or McHaffie, Pete Robins etc etc.

Rich is, I'm sure, fully aware of this thread, and certainly the investigations into his claims. He's been given the opportunity to respond and provide some evidence for these claims. In fact, he's been actively chased for it by his sponsors! And yet he chose not to comment or supply anything. So for anyone to say this is all going on behind his back and that he's unaware of it is laughable.

Rich has said in the past that he does have evidence for at least some of the things he's claimed. He's promised to show it to people and then not done, for various reasons. Most notably the footage of him doing Careless Torque. Why would you have this evidence and not show it to anyone? Including your sponsors? To me, this just doesn't add up.

And don't forget, he was very quick to publicly question someone else's claims and ask for evidence / belayers to come forward. So why is it now unfair for this to happen with his claims?
MattDTC 06 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:

Thankyou toby. I was originally a bit coy about coming forward because i thought it might jeopardise my sponsorship with Pukka Pies if people were to question the legitimacy of my belaying over the years.
TobyA 06 Dec 2010
In reply to MattDTC:
> i thought it might jeopardise my sponsorship with Pukka Pies if people were to question the legitimacy of my belaying over the years.

Thoroughly understandable; from someone who for many years has been trying to attract sponsorship from Greggs the Bakers - in particular from their toffee filled donut range.

OlliF8b06 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:


I never lie about stuff I do, Rich must have some skeletons to want to do this.
derico 06 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Ali - Such direct comments calling him a liar and the way they were put forward in my opinion are pretty nasty, especially the comments about his article.

I agree with you that Ryan and Pete are more reserved, I haven’t met James or Bransby yet so couldn’t comment.

I’m in work so don’t have the exact details, I know it has been in the Frankenjura guide for a while and put up by someone who has put up many 8c’s and above in Frankenjura. This is a bit vague I know, but you get the idea that if he can do this with limited training there is no reason why he couldn’t do a 9a (Which he trained for specifically). For this reason I do not believe my comments are worthless.. to the contrary I would say they were extremely important.

Luca - My friend is an exceptionally nice and honest chap who is a reputable civil engineer with no invested interest in Rich, so therefore no reason to lie. I have known him for years, so if he tells me that he belayed Rich doing an 8c then I fully believe him. I don’t really want to give his details, as this could lead to many people calling him a liar and it was my choice to put the post on here not his.

Thanks by the way.. I guess you like Abi’s part of the picture rather than mine!

Dave
remus 06 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:
> (In reply to ali k)
>
> ...but you get the idea that if he can do this with limited training there is no reason why he couldn’t do a 9a (Which he trained for specifically).

His ability isn't in question. You only have to watch Doyle's Action Directe vid to see he clearly has the strength.

What is in question is whether he did the routes or not. There's a vast disparity between having the ability and using it to do routes.
Niall 06 Dec 2010
In reply to MattDTC:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
>
> I belayed him on his redpoint of Action Direct
>
> There you go...all done and dusted!

Hope your belaying's better than your proofreading
Charlie_Zero 06 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:

If it wasn't for the claims of a sub 4 minute mile, a marathon in 2 hrs 30 min and to have 16 unbeaten fights as an amateur boxer, then this thread probably wouldn't exist!

As far as I am aware, from reading this thread and others, none of these claims have been substantiated. Unsurprisingly, this has led to his climbing achievements being under the spotlight.

I personally find it rather strange that a world class climber would choose to use unfamiliar belayers for redpoint attempts at their climbing limit.
JJL 06 Dec 2010
In reply to MattDTC:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
>
> I belayed him on his redpoint of Action Direct
>
> There you go...all done and dusted!

Good enough for me. Now we just need the Careless torque video, the timekeeper for the mile and marathon and his boxing coach to step forward. Oh, and someone who saw his solos in the Dollies. And...
Phil79 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan_2468:
> (In reply to derico)
>
> I personally find it rather strange that a world class climber would choose to use unfamiliar belayers for redpoint attempts at their climbing limit.

It’s probably not that strange - I've had the pleasure (or misfortune depending on how you look at it!) to be asked to belay in such a circumstance. I suspect trips abroad are not always undertaken with an entourage of belayers, and sometimes you have to rely on unknown climbers.
tony 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan_2468:
> I personally find it rather strange that a world class climber would choose to use unfamiliar belayers for redpoint attempts at their climbing limit.

That's actually not impossible - I 'nearly' belayed Dave MacLeod on Rhapsody - I was helping the HotAches guys with the filming and Dave needed a belayer for his warm-up climb when he placed the gear, so I stepped in. After he'd climbed the crack and placed all the gear, he down-climbed and then said that he'd almost just gone for it there and then. At that time, I'd never belayed him before and he didn't know how experienced I was. So I don't have a problem with the issue of RS's belayed being unfamiliar.

It's the running I have a problem with. I do a few races, at a pretty low level, and of the 14 races I've done this year, the results of 13 are available on line, and a search on my name will produce my races, positions and times. The fact that people who are much better placed than I am have been unable to find any evidence that he's achieved either a sub-4 minute mile or a sub-2:30 marathon makes it very hard for me to believe those claims.
lmarenzi 06 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:

Thanks Dave, a few more details or even better some info direct from the horse's mouth would be good.

Best

Luca
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:
> Ali - Such direct comments calling him a liar and the way they were put forward in my opinion are pretty nasty, especially the comments about his article.

Don't forget, RS had no problem publicly and directly accusing BH of being a liar four years ago. I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but it seems to me that there is now a damn sight more evidence (or lack of) for RS's claims to be false than there ever was for BH's. And following those accusations BH did in fact provide names of belayers and details for those ascents which were in question. It seems a bit rich for RS to declare himself beyond suspicion and now not do the same, don't you think?

I'll admit, some of the comments regarding the article being 'insulting to children' were a bit unneccesary. But you must admit that it was an incredibly strange article. Long and wordy, and yet lacking simple but important details like who he teamed up with to do these ascents. And including no photos of any actual climbing - despite obviously having a camera with him (evidenced by the single shot of him & his partner on top of some unidentifiable peak).

I find this single Brandler-Hasse solo claim incredibly hard to believe, never mind everything that's gone before. Alex Huber, not unknown for his amazing big wall climbing and hard soloing feats, soloed this route in 4 hours. After climbing it god knows how many times, and preparing for it for weeks - including putting chalk dots on the holds, analyzing every pitch, drawing diagrams, preparing mentally etc etc. Rich claims to have done it in 1hr 37 mins after climbing it just once before. That's LESS THAN HALF THE TIME, despite having some faffy rope technique to deal with on the crux pitches!!!! And this in his first 'alpine' season. That is some incredible achievement!

Is it not telling though that UKC and pretty much every other climbing media outlet in the world chose not to publish this as news?

> this is a bit vague i know, but you get the idea that if he can do this with limited training there is no reason why he couldn’t do a 9a (Which he trained for specifically).
I've never said there's a reason he couldn't climb 9a. But as people have said many many times before, being very strong and capable of doing something is not proof enough of having actually done it.
Having said that, I am still interested in the details of this 2009 8c ascent, so if you could ask your mate for more info or ask him to post on here that would be helpful.
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan_2468:
> I personally find it rather strange that a world class climber would choose to use unfamiliar belayers for redpoint attempts at their climbing limit.

Yeh, as others said, not uncommon at times. However what is uncommon is for every hard route you do to be with random belayers who never appear again. And which happen unwitnessed by people who just happened to be there at the crag. Particularly the ones in your own country like with Hubble and Liquid Ambar. And this has been the case with all of the ascents in question with RS.
Tam Stone06 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: I posted mainly due to his boxing claims but never really doubted his climbing prowess.

You say that all of his hard ascents are in question. I note that he has a very lengthy, impressive tick list. Are they all in question? It seems hard to imagine that after all these years of being in the media he has not done anything verifiable.
lmarenzi 06 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Ali,

for a bit of perspective check out Hansjoerg Auer's 2007 solo of the Fisch. 920m up to 7b+ in 2h 55min up a route he had spent a total of only 15 hours on, 10 of them 3 years before the solo. An incredible achievement, but apparently witnessed & photographed.

BH by comparison is 550m up to 7a+.

Best

Luca
Hugh Cottam 06 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:

Yes, and you can guarantee that had he not had photos and witnesses nobody would have believed Auer. Particularly if he'd lobbed in a few worldclass running and boxing claims.
bull2010face 06 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to MattDTC)
> [...]
>
>Oh, and someone who saw his solos in the Dollies. And...

And for the sub 4 min mile, someone who was at the ring during his boxing matches....
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
I was only referring to the UK ones and Action Directe, but good question.

Assuming we're talking about only F8c or higher, then the list includes

Frankenjura
Infinty 8c+, Showdown 8c Intercooler 8c 2nd ascent, Wallstreet 8c, Armstrong 8c, Raubritter 8c, Ronin 8c, Powerplay 8c, Action Directe 9a, Burn 4U 8c

UK
Hubble 8c Raven Tor, The Bastard 8c+ Rubicon, Liquid Ambar 8c/+

Spain
Ursus 8c Monstant
A Muerte 8c+/9a Siurana

France
Le Minimum 8c Buoux, Maginot Line 8c Volx, Agincourt 8c Buoux, Chiqquette Du Graal, 8c Buoux

I'm pretty sure that none of the UK ones have any forthcoming witnesses/belayers. On the UKB thread it was mentioned that there was some doubt about all the ones done in France, presumably done on the same trip?
Would be interesting to know who he was out with on the Frankenjura trips and out in Spain with.

To be honest I don't doubt all these claimed ascents. As you say, it's too hard to imagine that none of them are verifiable. But you would think with all the doubt that's been circulating for the last few years that someone would have come forward to say they'd belayed him on something.
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:
> for a bit of perspective check out Hansjoerg Auer's 2007 solo of the Fisch. 920m up to 7b+ in 2h 55min up a route he had spent a total of only 15 hours on, 10 of them 3 years before the solo.
I know. It's mind blowing isn't it! But as you say, witnessed and photographed so given credit for.
Al Evans 06 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> (In reply to JJL)
> [...]
> >Oh, and someone who saw his solos in the Dollies. And...
>
> And for the sub 4 min mile, someone who was at the ring during his boxing matches....

I think a lot of the problem on here is that people don't know just how special a sub 4 min mile really is, even today 50 years after it was first done it is really really special. So people who want to bullshit think it is a reasonable thing to say that they have done, like , say a 2,30 marathon, it isn't, it is far more special.
I don't know about his climbing claims but his athletic ones stretch the imagination.
In reply to ali k:

>Hubble 8c Raven Tor

Errrr....

jcm
Tam Stone06 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:Auers solo was reported here but seemed totally under appreciated.

Simpson may have become insecure with all these fantastic climbers (Huber, Auer, Ondra, Steck etc) that he had to bullshit in order to feel like 'a world class athlete'. Maybe he thought he was going to set the world on fire, had people bumming him up then failed to achieve his ultimate goal, Action Direct. Psychologically, it was probably downhill from there. (I'm guessing obviously)
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

ha. typo obviously!
ali k 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> Simpson may have become insecure with all these fantastic climbers (Huber, Auer, Ondra, Steck etc) that he had to bullshit in order to feel like 'a world class athlete'. Maybe he thought he was going to set the world on fire, then failed to achieve his ultimate goal, Action Direct. Psychologically, it was probably downhill from there.
Sadly, I think that may well be the case. If he'd had more patience then who knows what he could have actually gone on to achieve? He certainly had the strength in spades...
mrjonathanr 06 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
That's just conjecture. All you know about the climbing is that along with Malc and Steve McClure Rich Simpson has been probably one of the 3 strongest sports climbers of the last decade, but refuses to give any evidence of his ascents. The psychologising is irrelevant, it's just sad that a cloud of uncertainty covers that tick-list.
UKB Shark 06 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Luca's point was that Simpson's claimed time on the BH was credible/less amazing in the context of Auer's solo of the Fish given Auer's similar lack of prep and the length. I agree and don't know why so many are labouring this facet of his claim.

Also you can add 'Make it Funky' to the Raven tor list.
In reply to mrjonathanr:

>The psychologising is irrelevant

C'mon, it's hardly irrelevant that he's since made bizarrely unbelievable claims in about four other disciplines, is it? Unless you believe that he's gone in for some sort of giant troll in order to get back at the climbing world for not seeing the Ben H thing his way, it's hard not to carry a certain scepticism back into the earlier climbing.

jcm
Damo 06 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:
> (In reply to ali k)
> ... All you know about the climbing is that along with Malc and Steve McClure Rich Simpson has been probably one of the 3 strongest sports climbers of the last decade, but refuses to give any evidence of his ascents.

No, you don't *know* that at all. You think that because it was said so in the media and you'd like it to be true, as we all would. And you are assuming that there actually *is* any evidence of actual ascents. We don't actually know that any evidence exists, regardless of whether its supply is being refused.

Can you name one belayer on ANY of his harder routes? Just one?

>The psychologising is irrelevant, it's just sad that a cloud of uncertainty covers that tick-list.

It's an internet forum, that's what happens. He put himself out there seeking acclaim and money from us, but can offer not one piece of proof he has done anything he says he has.
Uncertainty? Clearly people involved with him consider it a bit more than that.


mrjonathanr 06 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Cod psychology is just that m'lud. Gradgrind had it right.
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
Evidence!!!!!!!!!!!! for god sake its not a courtroom. just get on with your own life and forget about this. Yes, we dont know what he climbed but we do know that he was a strong climber due to strict training. Maybe if some of you took a leaf out of his book and got psyked and trained then there would be more notable acsents by a more diverse group of climbers, rather than people sitting at home every evening slating others.
1
scooott 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> Maybe if some of you took a leaf out of his book and got psyked and trained then there would be more notable acsents by a more diverse group of climbers, rather than people sitting at home every evening slating others.

Training and using the internet aren't mutually exclusive afaik .
mrjonathanr 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to mrjonathanr)
> [...]
>
> No, you don't *know* that at all. You think that because it was said so in the media and you'd like it to be true, as we all would. And you are assuming that there actually *is* any evidence of actual ascents. We don't actually know that any evidence exists, regardless of whether its supply is being refused.

The word *probably* might have been worth noting, while we're dabbling with the asterisk key.

Damo, how do you know what I think? Particularly since you don't appear to grasp it, and it wasn't complicated. I just can't see the line that comments on the existence or otherwise of evidence or have you jumped to a conclusion? The point is that there's a lot of conjecture, but an internet thread is hardly an exhaustive investigation.

Make your own mind up on the basis of the little you know (it's hardly difficult, is it?) - but drop the Q.E.D bull, it's undignified.

As someone sdays, it's not a court of law, and there's not much forensic rigour round here.
In reply to mrjonathanr:

I will see your Gradgrind and raise you a Sherlock Holmes.

jcm
Damo 06 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> The word *probably* might have been worth noting, while we're dabbling with the asterisk key.
>
I think your opening line was ambiguous and implies a level of acceptance that I find unjustified. I assume you were trying to be generous and open-minded.

> I just can't see the line that comments on the existence or otherwise of evidence or have you jumped to a conclusion?

Evidence? You used the term 'know'. To truly know something in this sense you need some evidence, or it's just faith.

Upon re-reading I can see your comment could be taken a couple of different ways. I initially read it and inferred a certainty that you may not have intended. If I made this mistake and responded accordingly, then I apologise.

The point is that there's a lot of conjecture, but an internet thread is hardly an exhaustive investigation.
>
Who said it had to be? You're suggesting a comparison to something else. It is what it is, to whatever degree it evolves. That is for another debate. I think, despite the ugliness, the thread is a valid and useful discussion of the issues involved and to pretend otherwise is naive, and ultimately retrograde for climbing. As always with these threads, so many people come on and argue that we shouldn't be arguing. They dislike the tone of conversation so they pretend the subject of the conversation doesn't matter, or we shouldn't be talking about it. Bizarre.

I know others disagree. I understand their position.

And I did see your first post, before you changed it.
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo: berk! grow up! Just leave it, your starting to look like a pedantic idiot chasing your own tail for a result that you wont get. Just face it there is no evidence to back either side of the debate until RS openly admits or submit evidence but until then we should live in faith. He was strong and very capable.
In reply to jim hughes:

Depends which debate you mean. There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the running claims are to say the least very improbable.

jcm
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Yes, but this is a climbing site and I also think that a person is a person not a piece of meat to be ripped apart by the UKC vultures.
Damo 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

Thanks for your concern Jim, but I knew there would never be a 'result' regarding RS' climbing. It fits the pattern to a tee. I'm in it for the discussion, the exchange of ideas and what the process reveals, for wider purposes.

As for my tail, I have to remove it from this comfy chair and go away for a few days, conveniently, as I agree this thread has run its course.

D
lowersharpnose 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

Do you believe RS's claim that he ran a four minute mile?
The New NickB 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously) Yes, but this is a climbing site and I also think that a person is a person not a piece of meat to be ripped apart by the UKC vultures.

Ben Heason is a person as well. Rich Simpson was happy to question Ben's ascents when it suited him.

At the end of the day, it isn't important, except this is a climbing site and we care about the heritage and the integrity of the sport. Some of us are passionate about our running as well, his running claims made serious alarm bells ring.
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to lowersharpnose: I dont give a s#"t whether he has or not,Im not a runner and dont care. I am a person that cares about people that are being attacked on an open forum. I dont know if hes lied or not but all I am trying to say is he knows what he has or hasnt done, let him deal with it. I agree there are some tall tales but he was very motivated and if nothing else is true I believe that action direct did recieve an acsent from Rich.
jim hughes 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: as a brummy Ive seen him training, he was a bit of a monster.........
fred99 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

On the contrary. There is evidence that THERE WAS NO SUCH ATHLETIC MEETING AT WHICH HE COULD HAVE RUN A MILE AT ALL, let alone under 4 minutes.

I have stated it, along with backup evidence, and I have access to the facts, which HAVE been passed on to certain authorities.

Or are you calling me a liar instead.

RS is a liar, and you are being his apologist, which does not reflect well upon you.
blablabla06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: Jim. you are really missing the point. If you don't want to read about this then get on with your own life and stop hitting refresh.

This is an important debate regarding the history of British climbing. It's gonna happen whether you like it or not.
Dave Todd 06 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

> until then we should live in faith

What?

All of us?

You can use your faith to believe whatever you want to believe. Others may reach a different conclusion.
fred99 07 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to jim hughes) as a brummy Ive seen him training, he was a bit of a monster.........

You obviously know nothing about running.
Those who do have never heard of him - and these persons are from the entire surrounding area, and cover every area of expertise I can think of.

I'm sure I could drum up the full list if you want me to, but quite frankly I think that you're either;

A pal of his trying to hold up the investigation
or
Some t*ss*r having a wind up just for the sake of it.

I've called RS a liar regarding his sub 4 minute mile twice before at least, and I repeat it again.
If he wants to complain the all he's got to do is come out with the evidence - but he can't, because he's a b*llsh*tt*r who's finally got caught out.

Considering his comments regarding another climber, he should expect what he's getting. That's what really rankles.
jim hughes 07 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99: I dont know the facts from a running point of view, maybe he is lying. Yes I understand that these are tough feats.

What I do care about as said before is the public flogging mentality of UKC regardless of negative or positive evidence.

His climbing claims are I`ll admit it very obscure and tough but............


He was and is very dedicated, maybe too much, butI believe we are dealing with a man that shot to fame very quickly and felt compelled to climb the pro ladder as quickly as he could.

maybe he was blinded by the lights and things went a bit obscure but I do beleive from a climbing point of view that he was capable of these said feats and until we know otherwise, just leave alone.
1
blablabla07 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

I like your compassion - but sorry Jim, what you are saying is nonsense.
jim hughes 07 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99: Im not a to33er or a pal of his and I actually do know quite a bit about running as just over ten years ago I was running for the county.

Im am not an Idiot or anything like that I just dont like floggings online with out the defendent being present.
blablabla07 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:

I think you can be pretty certain that the defendant is present....
jim hughes 07 Dec 2010
In reply to blablabla: Why!
Morgan Woods 07 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes: I don't think anyone is saying he is no capable of hard climbing but there are some pretty wild claims out there which people on here are trying to answer.
SARS 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Morgan Woods:

I thought MattDCM above had already stated that he belayed him on AD or was that a joke...?
owensum 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
>
> Assuming we're talking about only F8c or higher, then the list includes
>
> Frankenjura
> Infinty 8c+, Showdown 8c Intercooler 8c 2nd ascent, Wallstreet 8c, Armstrong 8c, Raubritter 8c, Ronin 8c, Powerplay 8c, Action Directe 9a, Burn 4U 8c
>

Add Unplugged 9a 2nd ascent to that list

http://www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=809
http://www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=835
JJL 07 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Morgan Woods)
>
> I thought MattDCM above had already stated that he belayed him on AD or was that a joke...?

Sadly, the latter
Banned User 77 07 Dec 2010
In reply to jim hughes:
> (In reply to fred99) Im not a to33er or a pal of his and I actually do know quite a bit about running as just over ten years ago I was running for the county.
>
> Im am not an Idiot or anything like that I just dont like floggings online with out the defendent being present.

Then you can understand people questioning. If you run a quick marathon nowadays it is almost inconcievable that such a time would not be recorded. If I say I ran 2:46, put my name and the time in google, and a link will appear.

It is an awkward one because the claims were believable to an extent, incredible, but possible, and he's clearly hugely talented.
Jon Read 07 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
Really?? Didn't read that way to me. Are you privy to extra info not included in this thread?

I guess we need proof from belayers too, nowadays...?
lmarenzi 07 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

Does anyone else find something odd about the following paragraph? What comes across to you as his highlight of all highlights?

From the Wild Country website on Richard Simpson (copied just now, google Rich Simpson climber if you want the original):

"Stuff I have done -
Since starting climbing 4 years ago I have climbed many routes and boulders, my highlights been, Hubble 8c+ Liquid Amber 8c/8c+, Azincourt 8c, Evolution 8c, le Minimum 8c, Maginot Line 8c, Powerplay 8c, Chouca 8A+ Flash, Malcs Start font 8B, 8Ball Font 8B, Superman Font 8B, Pool of Bethesda Font 8a+ amongst other stuff. I also repeated the hardest problem in the infamous school room which as been unrepeated for 10 years, despite been tried by Britain strongest climbers which would be Font 8b+ outside.
This summer i repeated Hubble 8c+, which was a big tick for me. And i also sent a big bunch of routes in the Frankenjura, but the highlight was to make the 6th ascent and first British ascent of Action Direct 9A - Wolfgang Gullichs amazing and classic route."
SARS 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Jon Read:

Exactly. MattDTM comes on here and states categorically he belayed RS on AD and then apparently it's some sort of joke for those 'in the know'.

didn't read like a joke to me either.

jkarran 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Jon Read:

> Quoting MattDTC: Thankyou toby. I was originally a bit coy about coming forward because i thought it might jeopardise my sponsorship with Pukka Pies if people were to question the legitimacy of my belaying over the years.

Not the most serious sounding of comments. Fine, if he's not joking then that's great, in fact it's what passes for big news around here but it certainly looks like he's having a laugh.

jk
andy 07 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Jon Read)
>
> Exactly. MattDTM comes on here and states categorically he belayed RS on AD and then apparently it's some sort of joke for those 'in the know'.
>
> didn't read like a joke to me either.

Did the fact he'd cut and pasted the statement from the previous post not give you a clue?
SARS 07 Dec 2010
In reply to andy:

I didnt read it which was my mistake I guess. bizarre joke
alx 07 Dec 2010
In reply to jkarran:

Hang on, no I AM SPARTACUS
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:
> Does anyone else find something odd about the following paragraph? What comes across to you as his highlight of all highlights?
> "Stuff I have done -
> Since starting climbing 4 years ago I have climbed many routes and boulders, my highlights been, Hubble 8c+ Liquid Amber 8c/8c+, Azincourt 8c, Evolution 8c, le Minimum 8c, Maginot Line 8c, Powerplay 8c, Chouca 8A+ Flash, Malcs Start font 8B, 8Ball Font 8B, Superman Font 8B, Pool of Bethesda Font 8a+ amongst other stuff. I also repeated the hardest problem in the infamous school room which as been unrepeated for 10 years, despite been tried by Britain strongest climbers which would be Font 8b+ outside.
> This summer i repeated Hubble 8c+, which was a big tick for me. And i also sent a big bunch of routes in the Frankenjura, but the highlight was to make the 6th ascent and first British ascent of Action Direct 9A - Wolfgang Gullichs amazing and classic route."

To me, the repeat of Pinky Perky in the school room seems to be his personal highlight. He certainly puts more emphasis on that than anything else (followed by Action Directe). Was that your point Luca? I agree it is a bit strange.
Shani 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
> (In reply to lmarenzi)
> [...]
>
> To me, the repeat of Pinky Perky in the school room seems to be his personal highlight. He certainly puts more emphasis on that than anything else (followed by Action Directe). Was that your point Luca? I agree it is a bit strange.

Did anyone see him do Pinky Perky?
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
ha. this is one i can verify. there's a video somewhere.
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Just seen it's edited footage so not proof. Not sure if he repeated it that day with Chris or not, but unlikely otherwise he'd have put the total ascent up I would think. Either way, it's hardly the most important ascent to verify, considering all the others in question. It's just a four move problem on a woody.
PeterJuggler 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: Sorry to be pedantic but it's called Perky Pinky.
mrjonathanr 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to mrjonathanr)
> [...]
> I think your opening line was ambiguous and implies a level of acceptance that I find unjustified. I assume you were trying to be generous and open-minded.
>
> [...]
>
> Evidence? You used the term 'know'. To truly know something in this sense you need some evidence, or it's just faith.

I think there's enough evidence to assert RS position as one of the strongest sports climbers around for a while. I think it's adequately evidenced for me to accept fully. But if you want to be pedantic (and that's usually my job) you can pick up on whether you consider his strength to be knowable or merely reputed.

I'd be surprised if that were contested however. Even though the videos of Perky Pinky and A.D. show only sections, not complete links, the strength is there, what isn't is the certainty of the ascents. And FWIW the comments of Steve Mac, Doylo etc about his ability aren't something I'd doubt.

> And I did see your first post, before you changed it.

Then you'll have seen my reference to Cry Freedom and understood my point. Leachy was well capable but took forever, maybe Rich persevered and hasn't got evidence of the ascents, or perhaps rationalised he's good enough to do the routes so could claim them on that basis, or...any other conjecture, we just don't know do we?

As we aren't about to find out from Rich we have to draw our conclusions based on what information we have. Conjecture however isn't information, it's just conjecture. I think people are getting a bit carried away at times, and not thinking very carefully about what is, or isn't, known.

To be clear: I'm not leading the line for supporting Rich's version of things. I intend to keep my conclusions private.

I do think there's an ugliness to the thread which motivated my original comment. That could have been better phrased and clearer, I agree. I think there's an ugliness to conning people too, but we can only look after our behaviour, so there's no justification on the basis of someone else's supposed behaviour to be shabby ourselves.

As for calling you Torquemada, it's inaccurate: you're not leading the 'we wuz conned' camp either, but still, some circumspection is not uncalled for. Hence the comment - which was petty, hence the deletion.



mrjonathanr 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to mrjonathanr)
> [...]
> As always with these threads, so many people come on and argue that we shouldn't be arguing. They dislike the tone of conversation so they pretend the subject of the conversation doesn't matter, or we shouldn't be talking about it. Bizarre.

Difficult to convey tone on the 'net so not sure how to read this.
I'll assume you're not implying that the thread has upset me and so I'm dismissing the issue as invalid.
It hasn't; it isn't.

The thread has a place, and is particularly instructive when there are contributions from posters who really know the running or boxing world for example, or yourself, particularly your first post.

What isn't instructive is pretend psychology.
Measured posts are worth reading, silly ones aren't.
GrahamD 07 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:

Of course everyone likes to consider themselves as the arbiter of what constitutes 'measured' and what constitutes 'silly'.
The New NickB 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC:

Plenty have talked sense on this thread Mick, I don't disagree that Damo is one of them. Those of us involved in running (I know you do a bit of fell running), knew straight away that running claims were bogus.
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:
> I think there's enough evidence to assert RS's position as one of the strongest sports climbers around for a while. I think it's adequately evidenced for me to accept fully.
But obviously not enough for his (former) sponsors. And you would think they are in a better position than any of us on here to be fully informed of the facts. Or at least to question them.

> As we aren't about to find out from Rich we have to draw our conclusions based on what information we have. Conjecture however isn't information, it's just conjecture. I think people are getting a bit carried away at times, and not thinking very carefully about what is, or isn't, known.
I agree with you on this. But the information we do have at the moment pretty conclusively shows that the 4 minute mile didn't happen, along with the sub 2:30 marathon and his unbeaten boxing record (and now his claims that he will be in the Olympix boxing squad!). Would you at least agree on that?

For me personally, this shows an ability and willingness to fabricate achievements, and therefore I have naturally extrapolated this ability to include his climbing claims (both the recent alpine ones and the earlier sport climbs). This based on the fact that not one of these claims has been witnessed or had a known or verifiable belayer.

That is my personal position, and it will remain that way until anything is presented to convince me otherwise.

But I also think that there's something far more important at stake than my personal opinion or anyone else's on this thread. CLIMBING HISTORY AND INTEGRITY. Both British and Worldwide. For me that's the most important thing that I hope comes out of all this, and the reason why I started this thread.
In reply to all:

A couple of posts removed; apologies for messing up with the flow of the thread and for removing those quoted responses as well.

We are still looking into this whole issue and haven't yet decided what, or even if, we are going to publish anything in the long run.

Alan
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Maybe worth reinstating the info about the Olympic stuff and Tam Stone's response?
petejh07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
But I also think that there's something far more important at stake than my personal opinion or anyone else's on this thread. CLIMBING HISTORY AND INTEGRITY. Both British and Worldwide. For me that's the most important thing that I hope comes out of all this, and the reason why I started this thread.

This is probably the most important issue in this sorry mess.

I'm one of the people involved in authoring a new guidebook to North Wales Limestone ( http://news.v12outdoor.com/2010/11/16/new-limestone-guidebook-to-support-north-wales-bolt-fund/ ). Jack's also producing a seperate Rockfax guide to the area.

I'm currently tidying up the LPT chapter and gathering information for the history and obviously the number of ascents Liquid Ambar has had is now in doubt. I've emailed Rich to ask him directly for something to validate his claimed ascent but to date he hasn't replied. I've said to Rich that if he doesn't provide something to validate his claimed ascent then the guidebook will record that Liquid Ambar has had two repeats - by Ben Moon and Pete Robbins, and that Rich Simpson claimed an ascent which is regarded as suspect.

I climbed with Rich this summer and it makes me sad to have to do this but, as I've told him, the historical record is a lot more important than Rich's opinion of who is and isn't worthy of receiving any proof he may have. At best he's being foolish in his actions, hopefully that's all it is.


Null 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Amazed to find this thread still alive, I looked again at RS's published bloggs. Below is an almost random quotation from these (I hope we are allowed to cite other web sites):

"... , I’ve also grown hugely as an Alpinist by climbing two North Faces in Alps. Although my ascents were not as quick as Ueli´s, I still consider them to be a positive step towards making attempts on his times in that they were pretty fast, climbed solo and pretty uneventful ... I think it would be unfair on myself to disclose much more information about my ascents at this point in time; they are merely a stepping stone towards my ultimate ambitions. Nor were they ever going to challenge Ueli´s records – that was never my intention."

I have heard some pretty spurious claims to fame in my time, but this is certainly the most pathetic.
Shani 07 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:
> (In reply to ali k)
> But I also think that there's something far more important at stake than my personal opinion or anyone else's on this thread. CLIMBING HISTORY AND INTEGRITY. Both British and Worldwide. For me that's the most important thing that I hope comes out of all this, and the reason why I started this thread.
>
> This is probably the most important issue in this sorry mess.


I got accused above of making this out to be a 'much bigger deal than it actually is', but the impact on climbing history is quite important to much of the outdoor community.

RS's tick list of climbing ascents cover several historically significant climbs. He is clearly aware of the historical significance of these climbs (and has said as much)- and as such he is embedding his name in to climbing history. He is not tickin 'any 8c+' he is ticking Hubble, nor 'any 9a', but AD.
Gordon Stainforth 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

And the Brandler-Hasse solo, ffs, without any observers or photographs it seems. (Sorry to repeat myself.)
Shani 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> And the Brandler-Hasse solo, ffs, without any observers or photographs it seems. (Sorry to repeat myself.)

Yeah - I am showing my ignorance of Alpine climbing. I was not aware of how amazing this claim was until reading your post about Huber's preparation. Incredible stuff.
Tam Stone07 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC: Fair enough, although I stand by my post. This is a bizarre situation indeed. I really wish he'd just come clean one way or the other.
Shani 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

This photo of Huber soloing BH makes my palms sweat!

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web08x/wfeature-solo-huber
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
Can you add your post again? - important info given the fact that he has now claimed to be on the 2012 Olympic boxing team (read the UKB thread), and you seem to know what you are talking about regarding this boxing squad.
Null 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:

Another citation:

"Finally, I hope to head towards Chamonix in order to train on some big routes like the Walker, Freney Pillar, Tour Ronde etc. This, I hope, should allow me to increase my fitness, and prepare me mentally for climbing big routes, fast and un-roped."

I didn't know the Tour Ronde (north face, presumably) was a "big route" - I soloed that in less than an hour when I was twenty years old. I wonder if someone wants to sponsor me? (Yes - I have photos to prove it!)
JLS 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

>"This is a bizarre situation indeed. I really wish he'd just come clean one way or the other."

Like Schrödinger's cat, RS has simultaneously ticked and not ticked various hard routes - that's quite a feat in itself.
Tam Stone07 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: I've posted to much already so this is my last, I will end up getting pelters myself.

I am no boxer, have never boxed and don't claim to be an expert, merely a boxing fan who is fairly knowledgable. I have friends and family who do box however and have used my nephews and a pal to ask about Simpson. They claim he is unheard of and that with his claimed record that he would be fairly high profile. The England team is very high profile and Rob McCraken is a high profile trainer (Carl Froch) who has a huge talent pool to choose from. These talents are ranked and this is based on home and away performances and especially international competion results. Rich has 100% not competed internationally as a boxer and as such would not be elligable for inclusion into Robs team. If his home performances were so special that he was included, this would be in the press. Boxing ain't a niche sport like climbing is.
Shani 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Looks like his Alpine ascents *might* include 'Pan Aroma' and an onsight of 'The Fish'. All in the same week or two of the BH solo.

http://www.8a.nu/forum/ViewForumThread.aspx?ObjectId=15781&ObjectClass=CLS_UserNewsComment&C...
Hat Dude 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
>
> and that with his claimed record that he would be fairly high profile.

Unless the 16 wins were all gross mismatches similar to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6uaAEUXzNA
Tam Stone07 Dec 2010
In reply to Hat Dude: I'm at work using an Iphone so can't watch that but I imagine your post is tongue in cheek and that the link is to a pro fight? Very big difference between AMA and pro game, less mismatches in Amatuer game as there is no money it. (real money, some top class boys get support and sponsorship)
Owen W-G 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

What's the story with Si O'Connor?
Bill Davidson 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owen W-G:

Here ye go
http://qajariaq.blogspot.com/

Not been on for awhile though, at least he made for a good read
Charlie_Zero 07 Dec 2010
Tam Stone07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owen W-G: Ive no idea I wasn't into climbing when he was about although since joining this site have heard of him. Do these type of guys appear in every sport or just climbing?
Bill Davidson 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

I think climbing's a soft touch, at first I actually believed Si O's claims but then cracks began to appear, photoshopped photies, no promised videos & no routes where routes should have been. Saying that though he was highly entertaining. Of course it lasted for a while because it was in Skye, but nobody ever saw him climbing these claimed ascents (ringing any bells here?) He did do rather well in the 8anu rankings as well. John Watson from Stone Country did a very good video of an alleged V14 which was in fact a V4
Bill
Tam Stone07 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson: Thanks very much Bill, a condensed history. I've seen that video, it looks to me like he could never have been very potent as a climber, ever. His talent was creative writing. I know this will seem a silly question but do you know if he is a kayak guru? If not then it seems another soft touch 'sport' has been unearthed.

If Rich Simpson is what he claims is he the 'best allrounder' now? ;)
Bulls Crack 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson:
> (In reply to Owen W-G)
>
> Here ye go
> http://qajariaq.blogspot.com/
>
> Not been on for awhile though, at least he made for a good read

He writes well
Graeme Alderson 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Bill Davidson: Totally off topic but it's great that you are posting on a thread where words like delusional are being used because thats what you are if you think you are going to win our current wager ;-)
Bill Davidson 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Erse!
JJL 07 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:

> I'm currently tidying up the LPT chapter and gathering information for the history and obviously the number of ascents Liquid Ambar has had is now in doubt. I've emailed Rich to ask him directly for something to validate his claimed ascent but to date he hasn't replied. I've said to Rich that if he doesn't provide something to validate his claimed ascent then the guidebook will record that Liquid Ambar has had two repeats - by Ben Moon and Pete Robbins, and that Rich Simpson claimed an ascent which is regarded as suspect.

I think you're being seriously generous. Over generous.

Say! I climbed Liquid Ambar too. Can you please be sure to include that "JJL has claimed an ascent which is regarded as suspect"?

Gordon Stainforth 07 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to petejh)
>
> [...]
>
> I think you're being seriously generous. Over generous.
>
> Say! I climbed Liquid Ambar too. Can you please be sure to include that "JJL has claimed an ascent which is regarded as suspect"?

Just what is Liquid Ambar? Is it another route, or the one I've heard of?
Adam Lincoln 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to JJL)
> [...]
>
> Just what is Liquid Ambar? Is it another route, or the one I've heard of?

It is spelt Ambar, Gordon.
Rob Exile Ward 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln: Er ... it certainly didn't used to be! That's a later affectation, I think.

Though at 8?/9? who am I to comment?
Gordon Stainforth 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln:

That is very odd, because I really don't believe it was first spelt like that when it was first done (and I remember it being reported).
ali k 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
have you read Moffat's book? pretty sure he makes a point of the correct spelling in it!
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's been regularly misspelled by people who think Jerry M must have got it wrong, Gordon. It's all in his book. It's the name of a tree, and is named in memory of his late brother, although I forget the exact connection.

jcm
ericinbristol 07 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yup: says in his book his brother Toby was in the US and really liked this kind of tree (liquidambar styraciflua) and intended to plant one in the garden but died before he could. p. 137 of JM "Revelations".
Yanis Nayu 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring: Superb book btw.
ericinbristol 07 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265:

Yes, quite something. Makes you realise just how much he (really) did.
Gordon Stainforth 07 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Ah, many thanks for explaining that. I'm not sure why I haven't got Jerry M's book - I should have.
Mattyk 08 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I'm very dissapointed that the Millstone thread is taking numbers away from what could have been an all time great!
lmarenzi 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Ali,

You got the same impression that I did.

I think that reading what someone has written/said gives you an insight into their mindset. The material that Erstwhile has found above gives you a bit more of an idea. And here is more again, a bit more subtle but with the same underlying theme, which highlights the relationship of the value of training relative to the value of climbing outdoors.

From www.climber.co.uk, interview 2006 by Kate Burke

"How do you see your climbing developing from here then?

That is one thing that I’m frustrated about. I’m not hindered by my physical ability; I’m hindered by financial factors. Like now I have to work, but I really feel that if I was able to fund climbing full-time for a couple of years in Europe then I could climb even harder routes then I am doing now. I’ve only reached the bottom end of my potential, and I’ve climbed four 9a routes. I think I could climb 9b or 9b+ fairly easily; I just don’t have the funds to go and train for them. The Americans like Dave Graham and Chris Sharman are able to spend two years in Switzerland bouldering, but you need financial support to do that. It’s a very British approach. The climbing world here is very traditionalist and it feels like there is no interest in someone like me because I’m climbing bolts. Any idiot can clip a bolt, right? Don’t get me wrong, the personal rewards are huge, and no money could match the satisfacti0on I’ve got from climbing. I’ve no desire to be rich, and I’m happy to live out of my car for a year. I’d just like to have the funding to at least try and take it to the next level. I feel that I am able to push the standard on a world level, not just on a British level. Attitudes in the UK have almost gone back in time. In the ‘80s Ben Moon and Jerry were able to make a good living from climbing and were able to travel the world. It’s a real shame to be honest."

From 2005 Interview by Freak published on freakclimbing.com

"You looked pretty confindent about Action. Weren't you worried to do not get it? In fact it is a route that has rejected many famous climbers.

No! I was not worried at all about failing. I am not scared to fail, in fact failing inspires me. So long as i give my best then i can not do any better, if I succeed its a bonus, but for me the goal is to be fully tested and give my best on a route, nothing else matters.
Yes obviously when trying to climb a hard rotue there are laot of things that you cannont control such as the weather for example. Especially in the Frankenjura the weather is unprdictable at the best of times so it was always in the back of my mind that i could work really hard but not get the conditions to succeed. Fortuanately it was ok. With terms of been injured etc, this was not a worry, I have never feared injury since i am very lucky that my body allows me to adapt very quickly to hard trainging etc, I was overly strong for this route, my tendons where used to alot more punishment form my training. So long as I was well warmed up injury was not an issue. However I can imagine that htis route could end a climbers career quite easily if their tendons where not up to the job. It is very fingery indeed!"
lmarenzi 08 Dec 2010
In reply to shani:

It would be surprising if this story did not make the national press at one stage or another, you know what the Brits are like when it comes to questions of fair play.
lmarenzi 08 Dec 2010
In reply to derico:

Dave

I found an acquaintance who had climbed a bit with Richard Simpson back in the day, up to E6 and F8a redpoint in Spain. He has not climbed with him for a while though. Have you made any progress with your friend?

Luca
Rubbishy 08 Dec 2010


An illuminating thread for a number of reasons.

My initial feeling was that "who cares " and "this is trial by internet". However, I recalled a comment Bradley Wiggins made about drug cheats in cycling. He lost a major TT in the Tour to two cheats above him, and as he said, it cost him the ability to earn a living and provide for his family, which as a professional sportsman is his raison d'etre.

In this case, we have someone making some very impressive claims and reaping the benefit thereof, probably at the expense of some youngster who has put in the time, and done the routes and needs that sponsorship to really take climbing up a level.

Because of this and the fact that the historical record of climbing is precious and relies on honesty, I find this very Tomo Cesen and all very sad.
SARS 08 Dec 2010
> all very sad

Indeed. Can't quite believe it actually. RS was always an inspiration (to me) of what could be achoieved with dedication and hard training. Sad to find out it could all be an uber dream...
Null 08 Dec 2010
In reply to John Rushby:

Also the fact that a lot of these claims are outside of the UK.

British climbers have nearly always been treated with great hospitality and respect on the continent. Acting like a fraud will certainly not strengthen this, and indirectly other visiting climbers might be less well received, so in the end this sort of thing does affect other people ("us").
There are discos in Spain where they don't let Brits in the door because of the drunken hooligans - not very nice for Mr. Normal like me to be barred access.
Mick Ward 08 Dec 2010
In reply to John Rushby:

> Because of this and the fact that the historical record of climbing is precious and relies on honesty...

Yes, as Ali rightly points out above. The whole ethos of climbing is to be rigorously honest about what you've done (or not done). Many of us fall somewhat short of our aspirations but that's just tough titty. Better to live with the failures - or, better still, redress them than...

Mick
UKB Shark 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Erstwhile:

Don't be ridiculous. Maybe the case if had been outed as a fraud abroad and defended vigorously in the UK with aspersions cast on the continentals for daring to criticise our climber but that hasnt happened - thank god.
UKB Shark 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward: Yes, as Ali rightly points out above. The whole ethos of climbing is to be rigorously honest about what you've done (or not done). Many of us fall somewhat short of our aspirations but that's just tough titty.


I never fall short of my aspiration to be honest ! (But I could be lying).

Richard Popp 08 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: Just an observation but I actually feel that far from not joining in RS is, for whatever reason, is actually screaming something at "us" all. It is not just this thread but the long ones that preceeded it here and elsewhere that have sort clarity about what are important claims central to "our" understanding of "our" sport and the ongoing silence says much. In my opinion.
Rich
Tam Stone08 Dec 2010
In reply to Richard Popp: Hi Rich. Sorry, it maybe that there are some words missing from your post (or I am daft) but I didn't really get your point.
Hardonicus 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

I think it is something to to with the sound of silence...
ali k 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
Yeh. Not sure if I understood the point of that either. Are you sure your surname is Popp?
Richard Popp 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Hardonicusand Ali K- precisely, silence can say as much as any words on occassion and RS is choosing not join in despite numerous opportunities, I think that says alot. And yes that is my name Ali.
Rich
ericinbristol 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

My interpretation of Richard Popp's post is as follows: "Some have argued that we can't decide RS is a fraud until we hear what he has to say about the accusation. However, this assumes that his silence is merely silence when I think his silence is actually an admisssion of guilt".
PeterJuggler 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Richard Popp: And what were you suggesting that it says? It could say many different things to different people.
Mick Ward 08 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

> I never fall short of my aspiration to be honest ! (But I could be lying).

Well thankfully you didn't fall short of your aspiration the day (a more youthful) you did 'Dresden' and reputedly (I was on the piss with Dodgy G, etc) the whole crag watched in stunned silence.

'Shark and the Groundfall Mega-Pump' - gotta be a route name!

Mick

Bill Davidson 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:

I think you're right Eric, if he stays silent then he isn't lying any more. I can't see how some can believe his climbing claims but disbelieve the others, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth when others are out there doing the hard graft and producing the evidence but can't get much needed sponsorship. They do talk a good fight which fortunately for them people will take at face value till issues like 'proof' are actually raised.

As for the guide book I wouldn't have any mention in it of the alleged ascents at all until proof is forthcoming, I believe there is no doubt about the other ascents.
Richard Popp 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring: Not sure exactly what I mean, alomost but not quite that, I just do feel that despite the lack of posts RS has a considerable presence here, even in his silence. Many people have concern for him at the least, as well as other darker feelings so there is a certain transferrence going on even over the net. In a way I am trying to say, RS is telling us something, ie he is not going to justify previous claims, now how do we handle that? At a certain point it is not about him anymore but about how the climbing community repsonds.

Someone was on saying they were writing/updating N Wales guidebook and wold not be recording the RS ascent at this stage. That strikes me as entirely reasnoble-where does that leave a muete/action direct etc? This is going around around and around, it could get locked, archived or put on the log pile once again. I am not sure whether I can pronounce guilt or lack of it but how can we move beyond it I wonder?
Rich
foundryclimber08 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: This thread is idiotic. Just because no-one on UKC belayed him on any of these routes (in Europe) - that doesn't mean they don't exist. How about Markus Bock(?) - the strong German guy from the Frankenjura - what does he have to say? Or Rich's old girlfriend who was with him a lot? Doesn't seem logical to dismiss this just because you can't be bothered to contact the witnesses.
remus 08 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber: Its not just about the routes, its about all the other claims he's made which seem dubious.

This in turn has raised suspicions about his claimed routes. Several people have tried to verify his claims (Action Directe, 4 minute mile, Boxing and 2.30 marathon being the ones that spring to mind), but as Jack Geldard mentioned, Rich isn't willing to co-operate and as such it's basically impossible to verify a lot of the disputed claims.
ghisino 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> Maybe he thought he was going to set the world on fire, had people bumming him up then failed to achieve his ultimate goal, Action Direct.

that sounds a really odd speculation to me.

the reason is that i can't even imagine an 8a climber to think like that, let alone someone who's obviously performing at least in the high 8s and more a "redpointer" than an "onsighter".

What i'm trying to say is that there is no such a thing as "failing" on redpoints, there's just routes/boulders in "project" status. I think one should be incredibly talented (physically and technically) to thick a single 8 before having accepted that. But then this "talent who can't redpoint" should do loads of 8b/c range onsights, to dare projecting a 9a...

the "failed" psychology, as i see it, is something for punters who aren't mentally able to go beyond the second day on a route, or for competitors.

then i dunno, maybe sponsor pressure really drives people crazy who knows.

(as armchair as your comment, i'm no sport psychologist, just a punter who struggled with this point for a while)


Bulls Crack 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino:
>
> the "failed" psychology, as i see it, is something for punters who aren't mentally able to go beyond the second day on a route, or for competitors.
>
>
Failure as a dedicated sports climber maybe...

I'm happy to fail that test...mentally!
Charlie_Zero 08 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber:
> Doesn't seem logical to dismiss this just because you can't be bothered to contact the witnesses.

How much of the thread have you read?

Can you suggest a way of getting the details of the witnesses and belayers when the only person who knows all the details has chosen to stay silent?
ali k 08 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber:
First of all, who are you? Registered today I see.

So do you have some information to give? Have you read the thread? It seems that quite a few people have been asking for a good number of years if anyone has belayed him on anything. And not only people on UKC by the way! I can give you names if you like!

And these routes are not all in Europe. They include those in the UK like Hubble, Liquid Ambar, The Bastard, Make it Funky. You would think that at least one person would have seen him do something and come forward. One of his mates from the time? Or belayed him on something?

And what about the guide writers who have contacted him directly to ask for information. He has just completely ignored them it seems. Why?

Or those people trying to investigate this issue like Jack Geldard and Ian Parnell, who would be able to very quickly and easily clear up this issue and settle it once and for all? Why refuse to cooperate?

And why would you refuse to give information to your sponsors? Those people and companies who've been supporting you throughout your career? When they ask for one simple thing in return for their cash and free kit, why would you snub them and refuse to hand over a few photos?

And what about the ridiculous running and boxing claims? Or the latest alpine stuff?

If you can give a sensible answer to any of these then that would be useful to the development of this thread.

Thanks
Tam Stone08 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino: I'll be honest; your whole post seems odd to me. Especially the bit about punters and second day on a route etc. Fire away though.
Tam Stone08 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber: I might be wrong but I think Markus Bock supports his claims in the Frankenjura or at least does not dispute them. It's why I'm interested, I hold a tiny glimmer of hope that he will prove the doubters wrong. It seems very probable some of his high end climbing acheivements are real but as I said, I was into boxing long before climbing, when I started climbing Rich Simpson was a big name or it seemed that way to me. I then heard (canny mind exactly how) that he was into boxing. I thought that was great, as I get ripped by my mates for going climbing as they think it a bit of a gimpy thing to do. Anyway I watched out in the boxing and climbing press and eventually asked a few folk involved with amatuer boxing about him and got zip. Now this thread and the UKB one. You can't blame folk for having doubts although if he is someone you know I can understand you being defensive.
ghisino 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
tam that's because i know what went on in my mind, not in others.

"accepting failure", i.e. that i could try a route or boulder 100 times without a successful ascent, has been the leitmotif of all my "successful" climbing seasons.
My goal in the last 12 months has been climbing my first stupid 8a, i made it at my fourth our fifth sport climbing trip of the year (no crags close to home) because i managed to enjoy the "failed" ones and kept enthusiastic about my commitment, training, dieting and all the crazyness. If not I would have given up a lot earlier...

btw the process ended up raising my bouldering performances as an "unwanted" consequence.
Whenever i've raised my performances in climbing, i was in that "i just enjoy trying hard to reach my goal, no matter if i get it or not in the end" state of mind.

on the contrary i've been stuck in the 6's for my first 5 years of climbing because of the opposite reasoning, i.e. wanting "success" on routes at all costs, and had several "plateau" periods at various grades, all characterized by the same situation : "i desperately need to thick something, i'm sick of not topping the route/boulder, etc".


i am ingenuous and i think that other's brains work in the same way, and believe that a guy who has a problem with "failing" such an ambitious project is probably the greatest talent on earth despite his poor mental skills, i mean ondra level of talent or greater.
I find it easier to believe in two other hypotheses : that he has made up "everything" or that his sport climbing achievements -at least them- are genuine.
Boy 08 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber: I have spoke to Jenny about this. Yes she was with him a lot as she's also a climber and was with him on various euro trips. Unfortunately she isn't an eye witness to the questioned ascents either, or even the videos of them. No idea about Bock though.
ericinbristol 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Boy:

"Hi love, guess what I climbed today. Got it on video too! ... What? No, you can't see it. Wouldn't be your kind of thing. Yes, I know you're a climber but even so ... Look! Over there! Madonna! ... Anyway, what's for tea?"
Morgan Woods 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino:
> (In reply to Tam Stone)
> [...]
>
>there is no such a thing as "failing" on redpoints, there's just routes/boulders in "project" status.

ooh i like that!
Richard Hall 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino: Yawn. Me, me, me....
lowersharpnose 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Is it true RS is reading Law of all things?

I believe the role of evidence in that field is vital.

I think this thread highlights the poor role of the climbing media and sponsors. Why not check facts, especially given the fantastic claims made by Mr Simpson?

lsn
Mick Ward 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lowersharpnose:

To me, one of the things which make climbing so special is the central, crucial role of honesty - with or without evidence. While I fully accept that it might be prudent for a cutting edge climber to have evidence, surely climbing will be the poorer if we arrive at a day when evidence becomes compulsory?

Yes, the odd person will abuse the ethos. (But then, they'll probably have a go at tampering with evidence too.) However the climbing world is such a small one that it must be getting ever harder to escape fingers of suspicion.

As Nemesis the Warlock said, "Be pure. Be vigilant. Behave."

Mick



paget 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lowersharpnose: If he is reading law, his integrity has been destroyed, he would appear to have had his claims undermined to allow public forum ridicule, he avoids the issues by inappropriate silence and appears to be an advocate of "No comment". He'll make a fortune as a solicitor, or maybe he should consider politics!
ghisino 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Richard Hall:
> (In reply to ghisino) Yawn. Me, me, me....
talk about you, and i'll hear (read)

btw if i try to rationalize and de-me the reasoning (as above) people don't understand what i'm saying.
and if i had a non-me example of how minds work i would be happy to use that one instead of that "mememe".

so, curious about you so i will use "mr richard hall" the next time i'm involved in a conversation on the subject:
do excessive expectations kill your performance as well? When you want a result "too much" do you quickly lose the fun of working for it and the motivation? Do you perform better, in climbing and in life, in situations where you have "nothing to lose" and fulfilling your objective would be really nice but is not mandatory in any way?
If someone pointed a gun at your head asking you to do something requiring serious effort, would you prefer to get shot straight away, than even try to fulfill the task?
Do you agree with me that being overly addicted to the "fast send" is a brake on personal progress, or do you disagree?

btw again in the "me me me" i could tell you how not seeing myself in a situation where "i can fail safely" is sabotaging my professional life. but that would get you bored so i don't

craig d 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:

I have seen RS about in the peak a few times. First time i saw him climb was at Raven Tor on Chimes. Now i know this is only 8A+, but i have never seen any one make it look so easy (include Ben and Jerry + 20 or so other strong climbers)

2nd occasion, myself and John Hart where on Ouijiboard at the Cornice. The route only gets 7C+, (which I think is wrong as it is a lot harder than most 8A's I've done)but Rich came and joined us on the route. This was around the time of his boxing and not climbing. He didn't flash it but got it really quickly which again was impressive. He came across as a nice guy, not as technically gifted as someone like simon Nadin, but with loads of drive, determination and raw power.

I cannot confirm any of his claimed ascents of the hard routes, but I have no doubt that he was the strongest climber I have ever seen (including Malcolm Smith, Ben Moon, Jerry etc).

At the moment I believe that his climbing claims are true, and I am not prepared to jump on the bandwagon until we have concrete proof that I am wrong.
Shani 09 Dec 2010

"I’d make a speed solo but use a rope on the three crux pitches (I threaded the rope through the belay anchor and tied into both ends; when arriving at the next anchor, I’d untie one end and pull the rope through). This would provide a marginal sense of security on the harder pitches, but would also cost me time both at the anchors and having to carry the rope with me – a necessary compromise, I thought to myself."

So the BH is a 500 meter route which RS climbed in less than 100 minutes.

Add in rope threading, retying and rope pulling, un/clipping in to pegs, and some short rests - which you'd think would add up to 15 or 20 minutes?

So that gives 500m of ascent in 80 minutes (of pure climb-time) so around 6m a minute (or 20ft in 60s), which gives 1ft of ascent (one or two 'moves up'), every 3s.

Also add in the slow down on the pumpy bits...and adjust for fatigue - not least from carrying a rope as well. And the distance climbed would not be direct 'as the crow flies', but meander and traverse in places. Also you'd expect some route finding and a delay/caution where the rock quality varies....

So roughly 1ft of ascent every 3s! This is an astonishing rate of ascent.
Parrys_apprentice 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
>
>
> So roughly 1ft of ascent every 3s! This is an astonishing rate of ascent.

I would say the same about that Steck fella on the Eiger
remus 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Parrys_apprentice: But then there arent any snow fields you can run up on the Brandler-Hasse, quite the opposite in fact.
ChrisJD 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

And not forgetting what the route looks like:

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web08x/wfeature-solo-huber

RS said he roped the 500m 5.12a once before his solo ascent.

ali k 09 Dec 2010
In reply to craig d:
Thanks Craig (presumably author of the Devonshire Arms?)
It's good to hear some first-hand info.

The problem is that there's absolutely no shortage of people who can confirm how strong he was in the school room, or how strong he looked on certain routes (both in the peak and on redpoint projects abroad). You only have to look at the footage of him on Powerband to see that he was clearly putting no effort in! Or the footage of him on Action Directe to see that he could quite easily do all the moves.

The problem is that there is, and has been for a long time, a pattern that no-one is ever present on the actual redpoints of these hard routes. And this includes his girlfriend and his regular climbing partners at the time.

Now I know that this is in no way proof of him having not done them. However, putting this together with the recent incredible claims in other sports, which can be more easily disproved, and the strange behaviour towards his sponsors, guide writers and those people trying to investigate the truth. Add in the fact that he's claimed to have footage of most of the ascents on video, and promised to show them to people at various times, but then refused at a later date. It makes you wonder a bit, doesn't it?
Mowglee 09 Dec 2010
In reply to everyone:

Anyone think it might be time to drop this? I've had mild interest but have nothing new to add. He's not going to make an announcement, produce videos or anything like that. UKB made the correct move last week by locking the thread over there, maybe UKC should do the same.
Mowglee 09 Dec 2010
Oh and for the record, he's not reading Law.
UKB Shark 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward: surely climbing will be the poorer if we arrive at a day when evidence becomes compulsory?


It would be a poor outcome if this incident led to that becoming the case.

Apart from anything else studies have shown that if the default position of a group is suspicious and untrusting then it actually generates more dishonesty maybe because there is less incentive to tell the truth if there is a feeling that 'everybodies at it'.

The default position should be to be trusting. However, if anomolies arise then it should be generally accepted that its OK and even healthy to dispassionately ask questions and request evidence and for it to be given in the same manner.
ali k 09 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
Perhaps it would make life easier in the long run if it became the norm just to credit your second (or with sport climbing your belayer) when things are reported in the news. A small but important piece of information, and would avoid another scenario like this. Wasn't this traditional anyway in the old days with new routes / repeats?

I know it's certainly still the case with alpine routes. Which is why RS making no mention of his partner in the dolomites struck me as a bit strange.
Andy Stephenson 09 Dec 2010
In reply to shark: I don't think it's the "default position" in general, nor does it have to be. Normally it's fairly obvious that a climber's achievements are to a great extent genuine. Not in this case, however, so no surprise that questions are being asked as it all appears rather odd.

Don't forget that we are only asking for evidence because of the significant and historic nature of some of the claims made, and the fact that some sort of advantage is gained by having these routes on your CV.

I could claim ascents of (say) Footless Crow and Right Wall, but no-one would give a monkey's whether I can offer evidence or not, because I don't stand to gain a sponsorship deal on the strength of such climbs, nor will I go down in any historical documentation now that all and sundry have led them.
UKB Shark 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Andy Stephenson:

I was talking about significant repeats or FA's - situations where claims are meaningful. The 'group' doesnt care what you claim.
Mick Ward 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

I liked the old way of doing things, with trad routes, where the leader and second(s) got credited. It emphasised that the route was a shared experience. With sport and with headpointing, obviously it's more of an individual experience; yet the belayer's moral support (and belaying skill) may be integral to the ascent.

Re Simon's comment above, surely we must always begin by assuming honesty. And re Craig's comment, I was making a general point, not making any aspirations about Rich Simpson. I'm sure that, like me, 95% of people on here would love to know that the questions raised on this thread are utterly unfounded.

Mick
Null 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:

Himalayan climbers have always been expected to prove their summits.

Presumably this is because while it is relatively easy to prove an ascent, it is extraordinarly difficult to 100% disprove a claimed ascent.

Delving into my (rather shallow) knowlege of the principles of legal and social justice and equity, the onus of proof in such cases is on the party that stands to gain from their affirmation.

If I claimed to have climbed K2 solo last weekend, you would be entitled to ask for proof and I would be morally oblliged to accept your demand for proof and make my best resonable effort to provide it. If I had failed to take any photographic records or leave any identifying traces, then I would have to accept that your doubt was founded and reasonable. "Just because I say so", is not good enough when I stand to gain.
lmarenzi 09 Dec 2010
In reply to craig d:

Thanks Craig. That ties in with what everyone else is saying. Dates would be good to know as well, perhaps you could let us know? Perhaps you could spread the word amongst other people in your circle who might know more?

Trad up to E6ish, boulder up to 7Cish, redpoint F8aish. All absolutely outstanding achievements in my book.

There is a small article on UKC written by Jim Houghton saying that Richard Simpson put up a possible E7 in the Wye Valley (but at a crag that I am not familiar with), as well as a 7B boulder problem and even a 7B+ sit start or some such. This was in the summer of 2002. This article, to my untrained eye, has the unquestionable RING OF TRUTH to it. So far so good.

From January 2003 there is another article, and I am suprised it is still archived on UKC. Let me quote you:

"Richard Simpson going strong
Jan/2003
This news story has been read 111 times
Print this story

19 year old Richard Simpson from Birmingham has made some hard boulder problem repeats over the last 2 months, which culminated in a quick ascent of Full Power (Font 8a+) at Gardoms last week. Richard has worked his way through a string of problems, most of which he has completed very quickly. In the Peak, they include The Joker (Font 8a), Mushin (Font 7c+/8a, The Terrace (Font 7c+), Jerry's Traverse (Font 7c/7c+) and Ben's Roof (Font 7c+). In North Wales, Richard sent Incomplete youth (font 8a) in 1 hour, Crucial Times (Font 8a) and Lou ferrino (Font 7c+) were also dispensed in a similar fashion."

How shall I put this? Perhaps UKC would care to check the ahem details of this story?

I does tie in nicely with what the later Simpson is always saying, that his training is hard but the routes and problems he does are easy, which I imagine is not the experience of most climbers. Would it be unwise to suggest that the problems with unwitnessed ascents would have started in January of 2003 with this article? Or do any predate that, Ali, Shark, UKC? When did he claim to do Careless Torque?

From the current Ben Moon website:

"BM - Your best achievement?
RS - I don’t really know, I did the 2nd ascent of the hardest problem in the school room a month or so ago, and then re-climbed it with a 5kg weight belt on shortly after, that was good for me as I new it was a hard problem, but I know I can climb a lot harder than that. Also campussing 1-4-7 on one finger on a first joint rung was a good achievement for me.
As for outside, I have never been really tested by anything I have done or tried, Liquid Amber 8c and Azincourt 8c made me feel very pleased, as did Malcs start font 8b, but none of them where that testing, they where well within my capabilities and I climbed them relatively quickly, I just need to find something that inspires me a great deal and is also hard enough to fully test my abilities, I am prepared to put a lot of effort into climbing things, but they first need to stand out and inspire me to do so."

I know a bit about contemporary art, in its incredible diversity. Fakes are almost unheard of, but they do exist. A single detail only visible under ultraviolet light takes you from owning an important Warhol worth tens of millions to having a real problem. And once you spot an anomaly and you find it again somewhere else then you know the score.
craig d 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:

Sorry Mick. My post was not aimed at you directly, i just replied to the last post.
Rob Exile Ward 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi: 'As for outside, I have never been really tested by anything I have done or tried, Liquid Amber 8c and Azincourt 8c made me feel very pleased.'

He's talking bollox, isn't he? End of, really. If he's findng 'easy' something that the very best, most highly motivated and trained athletes of a year or two were finding to be at their limit, then he's not a freak - the first ascentionists were that - he's an alien.

A bit like someone claiming a 2 minute mile. Ain't going to happen.
UKB Shark 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi: . Would it be unwise to suggest that the problems with unwitnessed ascents would have started in January of 2003 with this article? Or do any predate that, Ali, Shark, UKC? When did he claim to do Careless Torque?

4.3.2006
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,5192

remus 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Careful there, he hasn't said any of those routes are easy, just that he didnt find them testing.

Testing is a broad term. His 'testing' could mean a route requiring a multi-year siege, which these routes clearly didnt (assuming he did them, of course.)
Mick Ward 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Erstwhile:

> Himalayan climbers have always been expected to prove their summits.

Agreed, there generally used to be summit shots. Dunno why, but I'm seeing that image of Buhl on Nanga Parbat. But surely it was 'custom and practice' not any kind of legalistic claim. When Joe Brown and George Band stopped 40 feet before the summit of Kanchenjunga (well, I think they did!), out of respect for Sherpa culture, nobody said, "You've not done it!"

And that's exactly what I like about climbing. We try to do our best. Often it falls well short. But, hey, that's part of life's journey. When Mark Hudon and Max Jones freed most (but not all) of the Salathe, they called it, 'free as can be'. They knew that better climbers would come along. (They always do!)

So, while it may be prudent for people to have proof, for me the time-honoured tradition in climbing of accepting a man or woman's word is far more important than sponsorship demands.

Phew - mad rant over!

Mick
Mick Ward 09 Dec 2010
In reply to craig d:

Hey, Craig, no problems. Like you (and I'm sure many), I feel that this has turned out to be queasy stuff - although, imho, Ali was right to raise it. Just hope RS is as OK as one can be in the circumstances.

Mick
lmarenzi 09 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

Thanks, that article and the original that set off this thread are quality.

SARS 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:

there is a youtube video floating about showing rich crushing two problems at the gunks. the climbs are shown in full and are V11 and V12 iirc. so I am not sure that what you say is correct tbh.

google englishman in new york and you should find it.
stewieatb 09 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:

Never liked Sting, no bloody way I'm googling that.
Has anyone ever thought that he might be dead? Could explain a lot.
lmarenzi 09 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:

Thanks for that, saw it on the net but didn't have a look. V12 = Font 8a+, is that right? The video on both ascents is cut, I think?

So to clear things up on this point please step forward Joe Iurato and Andy Salo, if you can hear us, or someone who knows them. Did you see Rich Simpson climb these two routes in your video Englishman Climbing in New York, posted on youtube, or not?

While on this topic I think it is also fair to say that someone on this thread said they had seen him doing Nightmare F8b (+?) but I don't know the details, ie when exactly, which would also be interesting to know.

SARS, I am not sure that Simpson has claimed to have done these routes anywhere that I have read, except maybe on his scorecard (which I am not intending to read).

BTW I was in Tokyo 18 months ago and wanted to pull on some plastic with a mate but we could not find a gym. Any tips for those who speak no Japanese?
Si dH 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:
What are you talking about? Those routes are boulder problems. He wasn't roped. How could he possibly have put that video together from lots of separate cuts, a la the action directe one? Its obvious he finds the moves that you do see pretty straightforward too.

Have to say that I see no reason to call his short, hard sport / bouldering hard ascents in to question, other than his silence recently. When I met him he was immensely strong, warming up on 7bs and 7cs at Siurana like they were a complete path. Suggesting that he couldnt manage font 8a is pretty ridiculous IMO. He was a monster.

It seems the more unlikely claims are the more recent ones, and these have clearly led to people questioning his overall integrity (understandably). I must admit Im wondering (like someone else previously I think) whetehr this is all one huge piss-take of Rich's because he got so pissed off about the Heason affair.
foundryclimber09 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I met the guy years ago in Portland climbing with two guys frmo Birmingham - Dan and Jim(?) - these guys will know something. Imo no way he's made these things up - wasn't that kind of guy, definitel wasn't 'on the make' with his climbing.
robert mirfin 09 Dec 2010
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

He's Alive, I called him yesterday to ask about campus rung spacings
scooott 09 Dec 2010
I thought I'd come forward and say that I was the one to belay Rich on Action Directe.

Okay, not really.
B_M 09 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I heard RS can kill two stones with one bird and he is the reason why Wally is still hiding. Also, he is the meaning of life.
Phil Murray 09 Dec 2010
I also knew very quickly that the running claims were bogus. If you're pacing a race at 4 minute mile pace, and do those 4 laps in less than 4 minutes, then you're not pacing UK runners, you're pacing world leading runners, ie. international Africans, and you're on the telly, and you've dedicated years of your life to the sport.

(Paul Davis-Hale was an exceptional and very well-known international UK runner).

I googled for a bit on the mile in Birmingham, found nothing, and gave up. He may be referring to the "metric mile" - 1500m - for which sub 4 minutes makes you a very good club man. I was OK, and my best was 4:10; I was a good club runner 20 years ago and have been a keen athletics fan for over 30 years, so I know my stuff.

A marathon in under 2:30 is brilliant, but not as far-fetched as the mile claim. My opinion is he's not done this either - if he had, his result would be on the web. Be interesting to know the truth...!
Banned User 77 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Murray:
>
>
> A marathon in under 2:30 is brilliant, but not as far-fetched as the mile claim.

Spot on. Sub 2:30 is very possible for a fit athelete. Sub 4 is only possible for the absolute elite.
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber:
> I met the guy years ago in Portland climbing with two guys from Birmingham - Dan and Jim(?) - these guys will know something.

Presumably that's the same Jim (Houghton) from Birmingham who witnessed RS doing "6:25 on his first ever 2k on a rowing machine" (From the 4 minute mile thread a few months ago)

As Adam Long pointed out on that thread:
"Assuming he's under 75kg, which I think he is, that would rank him 4th in Britain. He would have won the last indoor championships by a massive ten seconds - even more remarkable given he isn't that tall, and all on his first attempt! Incredible!"
http://concept2.co.uk/birc/results_details?year=2009&event=B1

Jim has a profile on here but up to now he hasn't been very forthcoming with any helpful information.
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99, Phil Murray & IainRUK:
> On the contrary. There is evidence that THERE WAS NO SUCH ATHLETIC MEETING AT WHICH HE COULD HAVE RUN A MILE AT ALL, let alone under 4 minutes.

RS is apparently claiming that he ran his athletics stuff under a different name. Is this common / feasible?
Given that you say there was no athletic meeting which took place where he could have run this mile or the others building up to it, is there any other way he could have run a 4 min mile at the Alexander Stadium?
In reply to robert mirfin:
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
>
> He's Alive, I called him yesterday to ask about campus rung spacings

perhaps you could ask him why he isn't responding then? it would help stop much of the speculation and word-mongering.
Banned User 77 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: The odd race maybe, but a person capable of a sub 4 min mile would be well known, for them it would be night on impossible to have someone else run in their place. A runner of that quality would also be dubious about letting someone else run and affect their running CV.

How many in the UK are sub 4 min mile runners? 20-25?

re the marathon, a sub 2:30 marathon under someone else's name should stand out unless he ran under someone's name who runs a very similar pace.

Also you'd expect him to have some race history even if he didn't do those 2 specific events under his own name.
r0b 10 Dec 2010
In reply to IainRUK:
>
> Spot on. Sub 2:30 is very possible for a fit athelete. Sub 4 is only possible for the absolute elite.

Also I challenge anyone to find a runner on Power Of 10 who has done a 4 min mile (or 1500m equivalent) AND a sub 2:30 mara within a year or two of each other.

Actually, don't waste your time because you won't find anyone.
SARS 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
whats the point in continuing this thread? from videos it's clear he was strong enough to do what he claimed. dai koy has said he believed rs did action directe - and hes likely to be a better judge than you as a) he was there at the same time and b) hes done AD

no new info is forthcoming so is there any point to continuing?
SARS 10 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:

as for the non climbing claims. who cares this isa climbing site
In reply to r0b:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Also I challenge anyone to find a runner on Power Of 10 who has done a 4 min mile (or 1500m equivalent) AND a sub 2:30 mara within a year or two of each other.
>
> Actually, don't waste your time because you won't find anyone.

I asked this and someone pointed to Paul Davis-Hale.

I'm not sure RS said he did the mile under a different name, did he?

When this came up before someone said (not sure who) that there had only been one sub-four minute mile by a UK runner (or something similar; possibly only one UK runner, presumably Andy Baddeley, who had done it in 2008, I forget which) in 2008. I couldn't find any way of checking this, but assuming that's true then that's pretty much that, isn't it? There seem to have been quite a few sub-3.45 1500 metres (which I assume is roughyl equivalent but a tad easier), so perhaps it's just that the mile isn't run much. But then, that rather takes one back to the original point - if it isn't done much it should be eaasy to trace.

jcm
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> I'm not sure RS said he did the mile under a different name, did he?

After the original running thread about this, RS told a friend of his that he ran his athletics under a different name. That friend then told me.
lowersharpnose 10 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:

RS has lied about his boxing, rowing and running prowess, which puts his climbing claims in the spotlight somewhat.

ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS:
> whats the point in continuing this thread? from videos it's clear he was strong enough to do what he claimed. dai koy has said he believed rs did action directe.
This thread is not just about Action Directe. If it were, then it wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree with you; based on the facts about Action Directe then there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the ascent.

Have you read the thread?
If you care about this issue, then read the full thread and feel free to make useful comments.
If you don't care about it, then don't click on the thread saying "Rich Simpson's claims...finally caught up with him?" in the Rocktalk forum.
Simple.

> as for the non climbing claims. who cares this is a climbing site
Exactly. And how is RS's ability to fabricate achievements in other sports not relevant to this issue? Given that none of the hard ascents have witnesses or known belayers? See a pattern emerging here?...

[Just had a sense of deja vu writing that]
Banned User 77 10 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Yeah 1500m is much more common and 3:40 ish is probably the class of runner who could do a sub 4 mile.

the way I understood it was he only claimed the marathon was under someone else's name too.
UKB Shark 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: This thread is not just about Action Directe. If it were, then it wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree with you; based on the facts about Action Directe then there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the ascent.


Did you really mean to write that ?

If there was no doubt about Action Directe then Simpson is a hero even if everything else is fiction. There is no witness testimony on his AD ascent yet.
punter10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: I have read this thread with interest, it’s an intriguing situation but I just don’t get it.

I have had a look at some of the videos of Rich climbing and as others have said he is very strong and seems to move well on rock. So, it seems that he has the ability to climb what he claims (the BH ascent sticks out as very odd though), but there is no evidence to show that he has done these things. People have argued that Rich has done these climbs for himself but if you only climb for yourself then you don’t become a sponsored climbers and you stay out of the media, full stop.

The thing I don’t get though is why Rich has created this situation or at least allowed it to happen, even with the pressure of being a sponsored climber if he had spent more time ensuring that these climbs were done and documented then there wouldn’t be a problem – if time was an issue then even if his ascent list was cut by a third it is still impressive. The running and boxing claims only add to the doubt over the climbing claims.

I am not sure what Rich was hoping to achieve by any of these statements but it does seem that something has gone really wrong somewhere along the way.
Null 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> [...]
>
> he ran his athletics under a different name.

Just out of curiosity - is this sort of thing normal? Why would anyone run under a different name?
Why would it be allowed?
Shani 10 Dec 2010
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously) Yeah 1500m is much more common and 3:40 ish is probably the class of runner who could do a sub 4 mile.
>
> the way I understood it was he only claimed the marathon was under someone else's name too.

Not sure if any boxing types can clarify, but I'd say it is unlikely that RS could have been able to box under another name because of insurance and medical consequences of competing.

Strange for anyone to put in international performances under a variety of names in several disciplines, and then claim them on a public blog!
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
You know what I mean. I'm certainly not saying there is no doubt about this. But in terms of the Action Directe ascent alone, I think this is one of the more believable claims. He trained specifically for the route and was notoriously strong open handed (i.e. pockets). He could do all the moves and linked sections (seen on the video). He had several trips out to do it (so had the time). He has Chris Doyle and Dai's photographer vouching for him (who were out there at the time).

And yet, as you point out, it fits exactly with the pattern of the other claimed ascents. Having no witness testimony on the 'successful' redpoint. If none of the other doubts had surfaced, both before and after this ascent, then I don't think this thread would exist.

[As an aside, and having said all this, I personally don't believe the ascent of Action Directe happened. I have spoken to someone else at length about this who was also there at the time he was trying it, and they are convinced that it didn't happen based on RS's performance on the route building up to the 'successful' day. Whilst I understand that this is only second-hand info and only someone else's opinion on how they thought he was performing, it is no less valid than Chris Doyle's opinion or Dai's photographer's opinion on his performance. And it doesn't change the fact that the belayer put forward by RS remains at best unknown, and at worst highly suspicious.]
Nick Brown - UKC 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani: I ran the 100m world record in 9.58 seconds in Berlin on August 16th 2009 under the name 'Usain Bolt.' If you google it, I think you'll find it's legit.
jkarran 10 Dec 2010
In reply to IainRUK:

> the way I understood it was he only claimed the marathon was under someone else's name too.

If he did then he started right at the front of the field (or ran a 2:30 without a chip and through all the fun-runner traffic) as all the chipped 2009 finishers around 2:30 (there's 14 of them IIRC) have chip times equal to the gun time +- a few seconds. Both scenarios seem unlikely in the extreme.

I hope RS is simply and quietly making the point he doesn't give a flying f*** whether he's believed or not, he knows what he's done and that's good enough for him. If that's the case then he's a fool to allow his reputation to be so badly damaged to make a point most people will miss anyway. Is he a fool? I doubt it.

jk
Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
> (In reply to ali k) This thread is not just about Action Directe. If it were, then it wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree with you; based on the facts about Action Directe then there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the ascent.
>
>
> Did you really mean to write that ?
>
> If there was no doubt about Action Directe then Simpson is a hero even if everything else is fiction. There is no witness testimony on his AD ascent yet.


I assume by failing to use the quotes system properly there, you were being ironic, Shark?

(winking semi-colon man)

Neil
Chris F 10 Dec 2010
In reply to like__a__fish:
> (In reply to Shani) I ran the 100m world record in 9.58 seconds in Berlin on August 16th 2009 under the name 'Usain Bolt.' If you google it, I think you'll find it's legit.

Is it cos you is black?

In reply to Erstwhile:
> (In reply to ali k)
> [...]
>
> Just out of curiosity - is this sort of thing normal? Why would anyone run under a different name?
> Why would it be allowed?

It's not uncommon for people to take other people's places in the big city marathons. It's not allowed, exactly, but you don't have to show your passport when you turn up, as long as you have the race number.

jcm
Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator10 Dec 2010
Blimey – this is getting confusing, as everyone (or the mods) keeps deleting their posts! Anyway, this is a reply to part of a reply from Shark, which was there a minute ago, but now isn’t!!

>In reply to shark:
> (In reply to Neil Foster) No - I wasnt being ironic - I'm not sure what you mean.
>

I was just tickled that there is a certain individual who normally resides on this forum, who occasionally strays to another forum. At that forum he is pilloried, not only for winding up the "locals", but also for his total failure to get to grips with the other forum's quotes system.

So I was amused to see someone (else) from that other forum, straying over here and not getting to grips (albeit only in that one post) with the quotes system on this forum.

Hardly earth-shattering, and very OT, but it kept me amused for a couple of seconds!

Mind you - using whichever quotes system applies is important. When I first started to read your earlier post, I completely missed your meaning, before I realised that you were actually quoting Ali's post directly.


As for the RS affair, whilst Rich was obviously talented and at times extremely fit, those who keep posting that he was a nice guy, and must have done the climbing feats he claimed, strike me as people incapable of adding 2 and 2 and getting 4.

I wonder if they are the same naive apologists who previously surfaced in the Cornish Vandalism thread?

Neil
John Gillott 10 Dec 2010
In reply to punter:
> (In reply to ali k) I have read this thread with interest, it’s an intriguing situation but I just don’t get it.
>
> I have had a look at some of the videos of Rich climbing and as others have said he is very strong and seems to move well on rock. So, it seems that he has the ability to climb what he claims (the BH ascent sticks out as very odd though), but there is no evidence to show that he has done these things. People have argued that Rich has done these climbs for himself but if you only climb for yourself then you don’t become a sponsored climbers and you stay out of the media, full stop.
>
> The thing I don’t get though is why Rich has created this situation or at least allowed it to happen, even with the pressure of being a sponsored climber if he had spent more time ensuring that these climbs were done and documented then there wouldn’t be a problem – if time was an issue then even if his ascent list was cut by a third it is still impressive. The running and boxing claims only add to the doubt over the climbing claims.
>
> I am not sure what Rich was hoping to achieve by any of these statements but it does seem that something has gone really wrong somewhere along the way.

If we assume for the sake of argument that he hasn't done all of the things he claims, one explanation mentioned at some point on this thread and on UKB is that, inspired by his irritation at perceived double standards, he has conducted an experiment to test the credulity of the climbing world. I've no idea if this is right or not, but it seems to be consistent with the facts. Of course he could have started this experiment at any point in time, meaning that at least some of the claims could be true..

Shani 10 Dec 2010
In reply to John Gillott:
> (In reply to punter)
> [...]
>
> If we assume for the sake of argument that he hasn't done all of the things he claims, one explanation mentioned at some point on this thread and on UKB is that, inspired by his irritation at perceived double standards, he has conducted an experiment to test the credulity of the climbing world. I've no idea if this is right or not, but it seems to be consistent with the facts. Of course he could have started this experiment at any point in time, meaning that at least some of the claims could be true..

So along with world class mile times, world class marathoning - BOTH with elite level 'identity masking', elite level rowing, almost Olympic level boxing, world class climbing, elite level academic skills, we now add elite level psychologist!

Unlike the list of evidence, the list of skills seems to get longer! Kaiser Soze has nothing on this guy.
In reply to Neil Foster:
> Blimey – this is getting confusing, as everyone (or the mods) keeps deleting their posts! Anyway, this is a reply to part of a reply from Shark, which was there a minute ago, but now isn’t!!
>

No moderator active on this thread today, I am taking a breather (apart from student bob who is a little annoying).

Rich Simpson was probably one of the only people who heartily welcomed the dry-tooling at Millstone episode!

Alan
ghisino 10 Dec 2010
In reply to John Gillott:
> (In reply to punter)
> [...]
>
> If we assume for the sake of argument that he hasn't done all of the things he claims, one explanation mentioned at some point on this thread and on UKB is that, inspired by his irritation at perceived double standards, he has conducted an experiment to test the credulity of the climbing world. I've no idea if this is right or not, but it seems to be consistent with the facts. Of course he could have started this experiment at any point in time, meaning that at least some of the claims could be true..


one of the few theoris i've read here that sound credible.
(i imagine RS as a very similar character to a friend of mine...who was/is capable of conceiving the above)

i also find some credibility in the following

"making the point he doesn't give a flying f*** whether he's believed or not, he knows what he's done and that's good enough for him..."

anyway, however things went in the past, i think it is clear that he is willingly putting himself in a "mr Simpson Vs the internet climbing community" position.

Maybe he's really crazy and he even gets pleasure at reading this 3d.
("look those morons that don't have anything better than fighting around a media idol...MORONS! hahahahahah")

if his top priority at the present moment was sponsorship money and/or glory in the climbing community, he'd find some way to produce some sort of evidence, genuine or tampered (wouldn't be the first nor the least. there are several "open cases" like that).


Jonny2vests 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> (In reply to Neil Foster)
> [...]
>
> No moderator active on this thread today, I am taking a breather (apart from student bob who is a little annoying).
>
> Rich Simpson was probably one of the only people who heartily welcomed the dry-tooling at Millstone episode!
>
> Alan

Really? Obviously a bit miffed by this whole affair. Was this a private communique Alan, or does he post?
Rich 10 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: I read Alan's post as "RS took an alias and contributed to Millstonegate in a way designed to wind even more people up"
Monk 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Rich:
> (In reply to jonny2vests) I read Alan's post as "RS took an alias and contributed to Millstonegate in a way designed to wind even more people up"

Wow. I read it as "The millstone affair really took the heat off RS". Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe people love a conspiracy theory a little too much!
UKB Shark 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Neil Foster:

Sorry about that I was trying to get my meaning across clearly and it didn't seem to work so I gave up after my third attempt.

Yes I think the UKB quote system (now I've worked out how to use it) works well in this respect and missed it when trying to write the post.
petejh10 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

There's a couple of important points to do with Rich's claims which I haven't seen anyone bring up yet.

A few people have put forward the 'Rich must have done what he claimed because look how strong he is' argument. Rich's strength isn't open to any doubt but the obvious question to be asked is -
How many of the current 'best climbers in the UK' or internationally are known for their numerous one armers or 1 finger campussing prowess, or have lots of footage of mega hard training accomplishments but zero footage of them sending routes or witness/belayer details. Steve McClure isn't known for doing numerous one armers, one finger campussing or sending hard woodie problems but he's sealed the deal on many routes 8c - 9a+. What about Dave Macleod, Malcam Smtih and the other Brits climbing 8c+/9a - are they known for their one finger campussing and one armers? Dave Graham, Sharma, Ondra, etc - I don't recall any big deal being made about their training prowess, they're just well known for sending hard routes. Paxti Usobiaga is one of the few who springs to mind as much for his training regime as his ascents.

This raises the question - are incredible feats of strength whilst indoor training a pre-requirement for sending what Rich has claimed to have sent? No.

This then raises another question - are there climbers out there who can do the indoor tricks/ strength exercises that Rich can do, and who haven't climbed cutting edge routes?
I don't know for certain, but I'd put money on there being quite a few training mutants who haven't been able to cross the finishing line on hard routes outdoors.

The other point that stands out is that Rich was obviously keen to show off footage of him training, it's out there on the web for all to see, and he boasts about his training accomplishments in detail on his blogs, blogs which are on the websites of various sponsors which he'd garnered from his proven strength.

This raises the next obvious question - why the dichotomy? Why was Rich more than happy to get footage of him training and show it to people but wasn't happy at all (see his replies on the ukb thread from a few years back to see just how unhappy) to allow anyone to see footage of him sending anything hard, or allow details of any belayer/witness from any of the 10 or so leading edge ascent he's claimed?
It doesn't add up.

I climbed with Rich this August or Septmeber (dry-tooling, how controversial is that!), during which he told me all about his Dolomites escapades inc the BH solo and Panorama, his not making the 2012 Olympic boxing team due to having an operation earlier this year, his one 8c a year since quitting 'hard climbing' amongst other things. I've tried to call him numerous times to ask him to validate his Liquid Ambar ascent for the new NWL guidebook but he doesn't reply, nor to any emails.
Hopefully (for his sake) I'm a fool and he's going to show me up as one.
Tom Ripley 10 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:
I've tried to call him numerous times to ask him to validate his Liquid Ambar ascent for the new NWL guidebook but he doesn't reply, nor to any emails.

If he doesn't reply to you calls/emails are you going to credit him thie the 2nd or 3rd ascent (I can't remember if he claimed the 2nd or 3rd ascent) of Liquid Ambar in the new guide?

ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to no-one in particular:
> one explanation is that, inspired by his irritation at perceived double standards, he has conducted an experiment to test the credulity of the climbing world.
Whatever 'experiment' / vendetta / other explanation people think he has for doing what he's done, it's pretty unimportant compared with the legacy left in climbing history. These are historic repeats of world-famous routes, both in the UK and abroad, and a first ascent of a long standing project in Siurana tried by many of the world's best climbers. If RS can't find it in himself to have the decency to provide even the simplest piece of evidence for these ascents (his belayer) when they are called into question, let alone even communicate with one guide writer, then IMO they should be struck from the record. I think Pete is being very generous even mentioning RS's name in connection with Liquid Ambar.

He seems to have had no problem finding the time to go back to all these routes afterwards with a photographer in tow to get staged photos for his sponsors. But ask him for some photos / video / witnesses of the actual ascents and all we get is silence!
bullethead 10 Dec 2010
This pic from moonclimbing.com claims to be of the ascent of Action Directe:
http://media.moonclimbing.com/cache/photos/germany/55.jpg_580.jpg

Wonder where the video is?
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to bullethead:
That's Doyle hanging from the rope, no? So the video will be his Obsession video. And that isn't the first ascent, as Chris wasn't there.
ghisino 10 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:
> (In reply to friend1)
> Patxi Usobiaga is one of the few who springs to mind as much for his training regime as his ascents.
>

in italy there's this legend going on that malcolm smith pretty much buried himself in his garage and after one year one day he came out like Lazarus, walked to the crag and crushed.

and brit sport climbers/boulderers in general are tought to be the stereotype of woodie training machines, since "it rains all the time and anyway their sport climbing is mostly choss"

(but as far as steretypes go, you don't win the "all biceps no brain" category. Germans rule that one, dunno why)
bullethead 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

No idea who it is.

The description on moonclimbing.com says "Rich Simpson making the 6th ascent of the infamous Wolfgang Gullich route Action Directe...", which would be a bit cheeky if not true.

Monk 10 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:
> (In reply to friend1)
>

> This then raises another question - are there climbers out there who can do the indoor tricks/ strength exercises that Rich can do, and who haven't climbed cutting edge routes?
> I don't know for certain, but I'd put money on there being quite a few training mutants who haven't been able to cross the finishing line on hard routes outdoors.
>

When I was at Uni, I used to be able to do 5 one arm pull-ups. I can't really remember what grade I was climbing at the time, but probably only f6c and V5. I have since lost the ability to do more than 1 one-armer but climbed much harder.
Al Evans 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: I used to be able to do three one arm pull-ups with either hand (it's actually not difficult if you train for them) but then along came Steve Bancroft who could do one arm pull ups on a single finger, as I remember , any finger!
john arran 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Al Evans:
> along came Steve Bancroft who could do one arm pull ups on a single finger, as I remember , any finger!

yeah, these mutants who are amazing in the gym but can't climb for toffee ...

... what's he ever done on grit, eh?

;-)
Yonah10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

If historians of climbing feats adopt an unmoveable default position of trust in all claimed ascents they will be made fools of, and in turn make fools of us, if not now then at some later date. They will not be doing their job properly.

We can't know if RS actually climbed AD etc or not, but there are very clear grounds for doubt. In the meantime, his claimed first ascents and significant repeats should be removed from future guidebook editions, with a note somewhere explaining why, in the briefest and least offensive terms possible. If his claims are true then RS has it in his power to set the record straight.

Whether his claims are true or false I think it is clear that he must be a complicated and probably somewhat tortured individual. If he told the truth he was a fabulously strong climber. If he lied he was merely a very strong climber indeed with an equally strong desire to be even better than he was. Either way he retains my respect, and I suspect I speak for most people here when I say that has my best wishes for the future.

And really, that's all there is to it. This car-crash thread should speedily terminate, so that the people concerned can get on with their lives.
steve webster10 Dec 2010
In reply to Al Evans:
although this has nothing to do with this thread.steve could not do one finger pull ups,he could barely manage a one armer.he was one of the climbers weakest stregth wise when he lived in leeds.
In reply to jonny2vests:
> Really? Obviously a bit miffed by this whole affair. Was this a private communique Alan, or does he post?

No, I was guessing that he enjoyed the spotlight being pointed on someone else.

Alan
funsized 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

> As Adam Long pointed out on that thread: 6:25 2k
> "Assuming he's under 75kg, which I think he is, that would rank him 4th in Britain. He would have won the last indoor championships by a massive ten seconds - even more remarkable given he isn't that tall, and all on his first attempt! Incredible!"
> http://concept2.co.uk/birc/results_details?year=2009&event=B1
>

Sorry, can I nitpick at this fairly insignificant tangent.

Firstly, it would not rank anywhere near the 4th fastest in the country. In addition the BIRC is not attended by a large proportion of the fastest rowers, as it is not considered an important event in competitive rowing (i.e. indoor rowing event generally mean sh1t all, coaches will be conducting in-house 2k tests). Granted it is a very fast time, but the majority of GB lightweights will be around 6:20 or under.

Second point, as someone who has spent a long time around many, many 72.5kg physiques, in various states of undress (within a strictly sporting environment!), I actually doubt how close he generally is to 72.5, or even 75 (winter weight). I know he's short, but short lightweight's i've know haven't been as stacked as he generally looks in his videos. Even a couple of kg's over make a MASSIVE difference at lightweight level. Without knowing his actually weight, banding around '6:25' is pretty meaningless, as it quickly becomes a relatively unimpressive time, as you go up weight.

Thirdly, there are many instances of very fit people coming from other disciplines and smashing out great 2k times. Instances of rugby monsters sitting down and breaking 6 mins on their first 2k. Fair enough he isn't huge, however, if he was anyway near as good as he suggested he is at boxing, the sort of physiology, and cardiology required at that level would transfer very, very well to a 2k test.

Long story short, if he was a fit as he suggests, its quite credible he scored 6:25. However, its not that really big a deal, especially as we don't know his weight.

funsized 10 Dec 2010
In reply to funsized:

*I should point out it's still an impressive time, just no where near the category of 4 min mile
daveje 10 Dec 2010
In reply to funsized:
> Long story short, if he was a fit as he suggests, its quite credible he scored 6:25. However, its not that really big a deal, especially as we don't know his weight.

http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/Community/blog/Article267.htm

Claims he was 68kg max. Given what you say about a few kg making huge differences as a lightweight, being at least 7kg lighter than the lightweight max should make his 2k claim even less likely.
UKB Shark 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Yonah:
> (In reply to ali k)
>
> If historians of climbing feats adopt an unmoveable default position of trust in all claimed ascents they will be made fools of, and in turn make fools of us, if not now then at some later date. They will not be doing their job properly.
>


Easily said from the sidelines. So where do you stand on the allegation that Haskett-Smith didnt climb Napes Needle as asserted by 'Geordie' here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=79843&v=1#1075436

I heard a guest who was an academic on Desert Island Discs this morning saying that Marco Polo had never been to China.

Mick Ward 10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

Aargh! I knew Haskett-Smith would come back to haunt us. I just knew it!

Mick
In reply to friend1: So RS is a student now at Cambridge. Can't wait to hear about his claims of almost lamping Prince Charles and Camilla through toughened glass, swinging from the Cenotaph like tarzan before 1 finger campus boarding up Winston Churchills statue to take a crap on his head.



oh hang on.....there were lots of photographers and tv crews
Yonah10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

With regard to Haskett-Smith, unfortunately today’s guidebook writers have left it rather too late to benefit from first hand evidence. Is there a lesson there, perhaps?
rilem 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Yonah:

Haskett Smith said he had a daguerrotype of his ascent but he wouldn't let anyone see it.
UKB Shark 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Yonah:
> (In reply to shark)
>
> With regard to Haskett-Smith, unfortunately today’s guidebook writers have left it rather too late to benefit from first hand evidence.


No difference - both extraordinary claims without first hand witness evidence to go on presenting a similar conundrum for either an updated history of Lake District Climbing or UK Sport Climbing respectively.
Yonah10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:

The difference is obvious: that one claimant, if genuine, still has it in his power to give the lie to any revision of the guidebook. If guidebook writers are too spineless to effect the revision now, this possibility will eventually be lost, as is the case with the Haskett-Smith affair.
UKB Shark 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Yonah:

What evidence could Haskett-Smith give to a guidebook writer at the time had they demanded it. He was soloing. There was no possibility to verify his claim to put it beyond doubt. If the chroniclers of the time had doubts what could they do?. To omit the claim would imply guilt. To express doubts in print - a can of worms. Conversely do you really think that if Simpson is a fraud that he will step forward and say its a fair cop? There is no significant difference.

History is constantly being revised with the outlook of our times casting diffrent insights into the past. Some things that seemed significant at the time are judged less so by history and the opposite. History written outside of the lifetimes of the protagnists is less feterred by vested interests and personal conflicts not to mention potential litigation.

Shani 10 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
> (In reply to Yonah)
>
> What evidence could Haskett-Smith give to a guidebook writer at the time had they demanded it. He was soloing. There was no possibility to verify his claim to put it beyond doubt. If the chroniclers of the time had doubts what could they do?. To omit the claim would imply guilt. To express doubts in print - a can of worms. Conversely do you really think that if Simpson is a fraud that he will step forward and say its a fair cop? There is no significant difference.
>
> History is constantly being revised with the outlook of our times casting diffrent insights into the past. Some things that seemed significant at the time are judged less so by history and the opposite. History written outside of the lifetimes of the protagnists is less feterred by vested interests and personal conflicts not to mention potential litigation.

I think that if he proved several of his (alleged) claims then that would do much to restore his reputation back to its former glory.

So for example publishing the Careless Torque video, details of the pseudonym under which he ran the NY marathon, traceable details of his 4MM (and perhaps an explanation of HOW is running achievements have evaded technology), and details of his fights (which MUST have been witnessed by at least ONE OTHER person....his opponent).

With a few key pieces of the jigsaw, in place I think there would be a significant shift back in favour of most, and perhaps all, of his claims (but perhaps not by all of the people).

fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Erstwhile:
> (In reply to ali k)
> [...]
>
> Just out of curiosity - is this sort of thing normal? Why would anyone run under a different name?
> Why would it be allowed?

In Athletics, and particularly Track & Field Athletics, there is a MEMBERSHIP system, which provides each person with an individual number. In order to run at a TRACK meeting, this number should be provided - it is a pre-requisite for League and Cup matches, at which the team manager provides the numbers for their team, and even in order to compete at an Open Meeting, a number should be provided to the organisers.

To be specific regarding names;
Rule 14 (ENTRIES), subsection (5) - Every entry must be made in the true, legally registered name of the competitor and this name shall appear on the grogramme.
Note - Team Declaration sheets and Open Meeting Entry lists are accepted to cover the term "programme". There simply has to be an official list for any Referee to refer to.
Subsection (6) then goes on to refer to ".... Any individual making a false entry shall be dealt with for misconduct."
And subsection (7) states that after a change of name, BOTH names shall be listed for a period of 12 months.

So, entering any race under an assumed name is a definite no-no.

The reason for Membership is simple - INSURANCE.
At an Athletics Meeting someone could get hurt - Javelins and Hammers can kill if they go astray, and all kinds of things happen with hurdles.
This is not just for someone getting injured themselves, it is also to cover them injuring someone else (3rd Party etc.).

If, and I do say IF, RS had run under any other name than his own, he would be in hot water with Athletics.
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

I should add, that the track at which he claims to have done his sub 4-minute mile is the home of Birchfield Harriers.
They are the only club which can afford to hire this stadium (I believe an agreement regarding cheaper hire rates applies to them, but I could be wrong), as I last heard it to be about £400 plus a meeting, and that was 3 or 4 years ago - before the alleged performance.

The only other groups using this track for Athletics are the Midland Counties Athletic Association, England Athletics, UK Athletics and so on.
Please note, that non-Athletic groups are expected to obtain permission to run such a meeting from UK Athletics, and anyone taking part in an unauthorised meeting would have their insurance invalidated - so no "real" athletes could take part - a bit expensive at £400+ a pop.
And anyway, there wasn't a meeting organised by any other group - I've checked.

Obviously it would be impossible for him to turn out in an England or above meeting (invites only), and the Midlands are also very strict regarding Membership/Insurance.

That leaves a Birchfield meeting, but the person responsible for the Membership details being checked in the Midlands is also a senior official at Birchfield Harriers, is responsible for the "Power of 10" and other Midlands record data, and glory of all glories, is EMPLOYED AT THE STADIUM. And guess what, I know this person well and we've discussed the matter.

So the likelihood of a sub 4-minute mile going unnoticed at this of all stadia is zero.
In reply to fred99:

Yeah, but Fred, you know perfectly well it goes on in the big city marathons. I've done it myself and so have a few other posters.

jcm
alasdair19 10 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99: thank you fred. So the 4 minute thing is b@llacks, the alpine soloing is nonsense, the marathon is possible/conceveable but unlikely.

The links on ADirect are achievable a few. Maybe malc and Ben and/or Jerry?) could have put together a similar video of themselves on northern lights...

Sadly it seems the guys a dedicated fantasist.

Unlike

"I can do it, i can do it, i can do it on paper"
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to fred99)
>
> Yeah, but Fred, you know perfectly well it goes on in the big city marathons. I've done it myself and so have a few other posters.
>
> jcm

If you read what I wrote, I refer to TRACK & FIELD, and also to the rules regarding Insurance.

Now when there are a couple of thousand runners jogging/running around a marathon or half-marathon, policing such breaches is nigh on impossible.
However when someone finishes around 2hrs 30 minutes, they cannot hide - particularly at New York, where there must be some sort of video recording.
It's a sad fact that there have been cases of people cheating in these big marathons, and a few people have been caught out when the organisers have gone back through the videos (from various points around the course) and found that these cheats simply didn't go through these points.

When it comes to the track, and also please remember that we are talking about a supposed sub 4-minute mile here, not just someone at fun-runner level, how on earth can someone hide their identity.
Anyone not already a well-known club member (and also County and Area team member) who did such a thing would be front page news.
Not only that, but hiding away would attract even more attention.
Shani 10 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

Not that I doubted you (!) but I googled what you put above and it seems pretty robust - and is a worthy contribution to the thread. I found a full pdf of UKA rules (assuming the 4MM was raced under UKA rules):

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/rulebook2008.pdf

Unless some good evidence is provided by RS there must now be serious doubts about all his sporting claims - I feel the climbing community are in no position to delimit where fact ends and his fabrication begins.

As such, his claims should be omitted from the guidebooks until he can prove otherwise. He won't mind as he climbs for himself.
Yanis Nayu 10 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: Did Simpson claim to have run a sub 4 min mile in a race?
Phil Payne 10 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

I reckon that the climbing claims are probably true and all the other stuff is Rich taking the pi$$ and seeing how far he could push it before people started questioning his claims. Probably payback for the Heason-gate affair.

Just one other thing regarding the rowing. Jim was the person that originally reported the rowing feat and I know Jim and he's a pretty handy rower himself, so I reckon that the rowing effort is probably true.
shaggypops 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
>
> I reckon that the climbing claims are probably true and all the other stuff is Rich taking the pi$$ and seeing how far he could push it before people started questioning his claims. Probably payback for the Heason-gate affair.
>
> Just one other thing regarding the rowing. Jim was the person that originally reported the rowing feat and I know Jim and he's a pretty handy rower himself, so I reckon that the rowing effort is probably true.

i think you have got it just about spot on.
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265:

He claims to have done so at "Alexandre" Stadium in Birmingham.

First error, it's called ALEXANDER Stadium, and the name is in great big 2 or 3-foot high letters both on the outside and the inside.

Not easy to get wrong.

Named after W.W. Alexander of Birchfield Harriers.
ECCU (English Cross Country Union) President 1893, Secretary 1890 & 1896.
MCCCA (Midland Counties Cross Country Association) President 1903-4, Secretary 1888 to 1898, and Treasurer 1888.

I know, I'm an anorak.
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

I also know, from speaking to "authorities", that his story changes every time something is checked, with yet more excuses as to why he can't be found doing what he claims.

That, along with his similar evasion elsewhere, is why I cannot believe ANY of his claims which don't have witnesses.

This is not helped by his accusations against another climber of having invented ascents.
ali k 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> I reckon that the climbing claims are probably true and all the other stuff is Rich taking the pi$$ and seeing how far he could push it before people started questioning his claims. Probably payback for the Heason-gate affair.
I don't buy this. If it were true then you would expect his close friends to be 'in on it' too. He would have told someone what he was up to just to share the joke you would think? But this doesn't appear to be the case.
RupertD 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k and Fred99 etc:

So, wait, I'm not sure I've understood. You don't believe he's done these things? No, I'm still confused.

Maybe we need another 200 posts about the lack of records, the spelling of Alexandre (sic) Stadium, and some more cod psychology to clarify the issue.
Bill Davidson 10 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

Has anyone got a time scale on all these 'events' e.g when he started climbing, when he started running, boxing etc. He'd be the Leonardo Da Vinci of Sports if it's all true!
I do however have a mate who climbed with him & says he can believe the claims on the 9a's or he could have been winding me up a highly likely scenario actually!
banned profile 7410 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:
>
>
> First error, it's called ALEXANDER Stadium, and the name is in great big 2 or 3-foot high letters both on the outside and the inside.
>


you not heard of a typo?
Jon Read 10 Dec 2010
Wasn't the pseudonym at NY marathon suggested to be Ivan Greene (see UKB discontinued thread). Should be easy to check that out. I was there in 2008, watching the leaders of the pack nr the end at Central Park. Didn't see Rich, but I certainly didn't watch everyone that was flying past! Amazing event.

I admit to mixed feelings about this thread and other related ones. I knew Rich a bit from the Warwick wall when he was 'emerging', and heard through a mutual friend of his extra-ordinary achievements, which I still would really like to believe. He always seemed decent enough to me, I never caught a whiff of bullshit, unlike a few others that I have met!

I find it unfathomable why anyone would want to be quiet when faced with these sort of accusations. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose by not stepping up, guns blazing, blasting the sceptics (which, as a scientist, I'm inclined to side with) with an overdose of evidence. I so much want Rich to be vindicated, because -- you know -- I like the guy, but I just don't get it, and ultimately can't help but to start doubting. Which is a damn shame.

Rich, you should sort this out.
bouldery bits 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Jon Read:
> Wasn't the pseudonym at NY marathon suggested to be Ivan Greene (see UKB discontinued thread). Should be easy to check that out. I was there in 2008, watching the leaders of the pack nr the end at Central Park. Didn't see Rich, but I certainly didn't watch everyone that was flying past! Amazing event.
>
> I admit to mixed feelings about this thread and other related ones. I knew Rich a bit from the Warwick wall when he was 'emerging', and heard through a mutual friend of his extra-ordinary achievements, which I still would really like to believe. He always seemed decent enough to me, I never caught a whiff of bullshit, unlike a few others that I have met!
>
> I find it unfathomable why anyone would want to be quiet when faced with these sort of accusations. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose by not stepping up, guns blazing, blasting the sceptics (which, as a scientist, I'm inclined to side with) with an overdose of evidence. I so much want Rich to be vindicated, because -- you know -- I like the guy, but I just don't get it, and ultimately can't help but to start doubting. Which is a damn shame.
>
> Rich, you should sort this out.


Completely agree with the sentiment - but maybe he just doesn't care. Which is cool by me.
mrjonathanr 10 Dec 2010
In reply to RupertD:
> (In reply to ali k and Fred99 etc)
>
> So, wait, I'm not sure I've understood. You don't believe he's done these things? No, I'm still confused.
>
> Maybe we need another 200 posts about the lack of records, the spelling of Alexandre (sic) Stadium, and some more cod psychology to clarify the issue.

Well that was my point too Rupert. There are some posters who are worth reading, those who have particular knowledge of other sports for example.

However: it's not difficult to form an opinion on the basis of what facts are available but doesn't need reformulating ad nauseam.
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
I'm not saying it's a major item, but as it was in an item publicising his supposed sub 4-minute mile (along with his other "achievements"), it's strange that it wasn't corrected before publication. I know that anyone worth their salt checks names, dates and so forth before going into "print".
fred99 10 Dec 2010
In reply to bouldery bits:

Not necessarily directly to bouldery bits of course but;

There are many who reply in the "who cares" vein.

There is such a thing as honesty. It's what climbing relies upon with regard to first ascents, protection, aid and so forth.
Maybe some of those persons responding in such a manner have climbed routes pulling on gear, resting on aid and so on, and then claimed a "clean" ascent. It's not something I could do, and not something that the overwhelming majority of climbers would (I hope) condone.

Not only that but the sponsors.
Having been most likely conned, will they not feel less likely to support another climber in the future, and what about the honest climber who could have received the suport instead of RS.
Somewhere out there is a climber seething about this, who could have received the assistance instead.

To me, climbing at the top level is not that interesting, simply because it's both technically and physically so far beyond my ability.
But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be concerned when lying is being used to bolster reputations.
And when such a person makes claims that effectively rubbish athletes (to use the general term) in other sports, by claiming how easy it supposedly is to be world class or an Olympian in them, then I take umbrage.

I was (a long time ago), just outside international class as a runner, at a time when British distance runners were the best in the world.
Maybe it's my pride in how good we runners were then that has got me so annoyed at RS's fictitious claims.
When some people say "so what, who cares", well I do. It's not just messing on climbing that's going on here, he's effectively rubbishing just about every Miler, Marathoner, Boxer and so on that's ever competed.

Why doesn't RS prove how good he is by getting into the ring with some up and coming young boxer (of similar weight), after of course 2 or 3 weeks of training - after all, that's all it seems to take him.
Then we might see something of the truth - Entry payable on the door, all proceeds to charity of course.
fred99 11 Dec 2010
In reply to fred99:

Support with 2 p's of course, not 1.

But then, this isn't an article being checked and proof read before publication, aimed at making or reinforcing a reputation.
In reply to Jon Read:

>Wasn't the pseudonym at NY marathon suggested to be Ivan Greene (see UKB discontinued thread)

My impression was that it was said that IG organised the place for him, rather than giving up his own place. But this was all about third-hand anyway.

jcm
lukasbini11 Dec 2010
In reply to remus:

even though i'm a huge fan of rich and a believer of all his ascents until he's proven wrong, i have to say that the obsession video does not at all show his ability to climb action direct.

a friend of mine climbed the route (jan hojer - uncut footage on youtube) and was on his first day on it able to do bigger links than rich on the video (i don't know if my memory serves me right, but i'm quite sure he climbed it in 3 parts in his first session) but it still took him 9 more sessions to complete the route. he even fell about 5 times on the last few moves of which (according to him) no one is harder than fb 7a+ or 7b

obviously climbing action directe is not about being able to do the single moves easily, but about keeping it together until the top.

regards from germany (and sorry for the bad english)
lukas
Boogs 11 Dec 2010
In reply to lukasbini:

Thats an interesting & positive post Lukas , great english too .

regards from england

leon
sutty 11 Dec 2010
In reply to lukasbini:

Lukas, could you link this thread to some continental sites to see if anyone can comment on Action directe and other claims?

I don't want to mail Rich, even if his email addy is still the same but would like him to think things through and come up with some explanation for all this mess.
silo 11 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: I find the hole thing very sad, surly not all his achievements are false, action direct looked real to me!I don't liked the way this has turned in to a hanging party baying for blood.he's obviously got a few issues.
Banned User 77 11 Dec 2010
In reply to silo: Understandable, it goes right to the heart of mountain sports. Someone can go off and solo on alpine route and he'd be believed, if some claims are not true it then causes people to case doubt on others.
Shani 11 Dec 2010
In reply to silo:
> (In reply to friend1) I don't liked the way this has turned in to a hanging party baying for blood.he's obviously got a few issues.

Nonsense. People are just asking RS for evidence of is incredible claims. If he has lied - so f*cking what? He gets removed from the historical sections of the guides. End of. No need to pursue it further. If he is telling the truth - then he will continue to inspire.
lmarenzi 11 Dec 2010
In reply to Lukasbini:

Lukas,

Thanks for your post. The Obsession video does show Richard Simpson climbing a route called Nightmare. To me it looks like an uncut video of a genuine 8b redpoint. Are you familiar with the route? Can you comment on it?

Thanks

Luca
UKB Shark 11 Dec 2010
In reply to lukasbini:

Thanks for the input. Dan Varian made similar observations on the UKB thread.

However, the video may not show Simpson's best links. Also Koyamada who was working the route with Simpson said he (Simpson) was doing better on it than him. Koyamada went on to redpoint the route 2 days after Simpsons claimed ascent.

Taking these things into account I think the video footage neither proves or disproves anything.
ali k 11 Dec 2010
In reply to RupertD:

Sarcasm. A great contribution.

While I agree with your sentiment Rupert, in that we seem to be chasing our tails a bit here, IMO it would be the wrong decision just to sweep this under the carpet again (how many times has that happened in the past?)

I think something like this needs time. Time for people to actually become aware of the thread and to read it. Time for it to sink in and for people to formulate an opinion based on what is known, rather than just blindly believing what they've read in magazines or on the Internet for years. Time for people to maybe check a few facts and ask around. And then time for people to respond to it and provide a worthwhile contribution.

The longer this thread is alive, the more people become aware of it and the more people can make that decision for themselves. Instead of what's happened previously with this issue, in that people feel uncomfortable with the situation and try to make it go away as quickly as possible. Just for it to reoccur at a later date.

So where do we go from here?
For argument's sake, let's assume based on what has come out of these recent threads that the 4 min mile, the 2:30 NY marathon, and the boxing record are all fabricated (that seems to be the most likely situation). The knock on effect being that this casts more doubt on the already suspicious pattern to the notable claimed ascents. Add in RS's continuing refusal to provide any explanation for any of it.
Is it then unreasonable for these claimed ascents to be completely erased from the historical records? Until such time as RS provides an explanation for what has occurred here? (Given that it's already happening with the ascent of Liquid Ambar in the new North Wales Limestone guide)

I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions of where to go from here.
Dan_Carroll 11 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

wow this thing is still going! I lost track around the 300 post mark.. has there been anything concrete since or has the pure conjecture continued?
stevieo10 12 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: Why did you decide to start this thread using the name Friend1?
Tam Stone12 Dec 2010
In reply to Dan_Carroll: Yes his boxing claims are bull.
The Jazz Butcher 12 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

I have just read the whole thread (couldn't sleep), it makes fascinating reading and I agree that this is an important issue.

There are numerous climbers (and other sportspeople) who have dedicated many years of their lives training to be the best they can in their chosen field. Unfortunately, not everyone can make it into the 'big time' so to speak and many of these extremely dedicated people never make a living from their efforts.

When an individual lies / cheats in order to succeed and reap the financial and other benefits from those lies then they must be exposed.

The history and integrity of climbing is something that is very important to keep as accurate and true as possible.

I have always tried to believe claims made by climbers and mountaineers as there is not always hard evidence.

However, from the evidence above and by reading a lot of the reports by RS himself, particularly the recent Alpine ones, I cannot take his (RS) claims without further evidence and proof.

For goodness sake, the BH in 1 hr 37 minutes??!!

The other sporting claims are just incredible as, has been shown, they are much more easily proven or otherwise.

I feel great pity for anyone that feels the need to make such claims. Especially as they obviously had some talent to begin with.

Keep this thread running as it is important for as many people as possible to read and make up their own minds.

Unless otherwise proven, all the disputed ascents by RS should be struck from the climbing records.

Rich.
ghisino 12 Dec 2010
In reply to Richard White:

1. it seems that back in the day, two very well known sponsored climbers signed huge contracts thanks to...overgraded FA's, among other things.

2. today, i guess it takes more than performance claims (real or bs) to get a sponsorship. It takes media value. Climbers who are not really "at the cutting edge" make it because they don't just have the fitness, but also something else that attracts people on their blogs, for instance.

3.really, how many climbers on earth "make a living" from sponsorship alone?????? How many equally good climbers don't make it because simply there's not enough money around??????
ChrisJD 12 Dec 2010
In reply to stevieo10:
> (In reply to ali k) Why did you decide to start this thread using the name Friend1?

He's explained that on 3 Dec
The Jazz Butcher 12 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino:

If you care to read my reply properly, you will note that I am not only referring to climbers, but all sportspeople.

You are correct that not many climbers actually make a living from climbers. This makes it even more important that false claims, which lead to financial benefit, are uncovered.

In terms of climbing, my main concern is that the correct history is recorded and maintained.

Overgrading is not in the same league as lying about an ascent and ones achievements.

RS has been sponsored as a result of his achievements that are in dispute. He is the one who has made the claims regarding those achievements and has actively been seeking the benefits, financial and otherwise, of those claims.

If he didn't care whether others believed him or not, why has he gone to the effort of letting many people know about his achievements?

I suspect that RS wants others to believe his claims otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the efforts he has.

Rich.
George Fisher 12 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:

500

yes!
Shani 12 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> (In reply to Dan_Carroll) Yes his boxing claims are bull.

And like his running claims - there is a general lack of 'breadcrumbs'. That is, any electronic record of verifiable performances that suggest support for his 'elite' claims.

I think that is why his climbing claims have been largely accepted - because looking at the footage of his training, he is obviously strong, so it is believable that he could do, for example, AD.

But the BH - I dunno. And the running and boxing claims - well how the hell do you AVOID any single electronic or printed record of your performance?
Tam Stone12 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani: The more it goes on the more dislike I have for the cheating beggar. The wee fanboys who are saying "but Rich was my hero, please believe every word he spews" are becomming equally tiresome. Just cos a guy is strong does not make him a bastion of honesty. He is a liar plain and simple.

Yes, I have a severe hangover.
lmarenzi 12 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

"I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions of where to go from here."

I suggest you have a quick look on 8a.nu to see how one Mr. Bill Davidson has taken all this one step forward. And quite rightly too.
jonathan shepherd 12 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi: Where on 8a.nu ,I can't see it.
lmarenzi 12 Dec 2010
In reply to Jonathan Shepherd:

Forum and Comments. The thread is called REALITY CHECK ON UKB AND UKC.

For me it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has actually been climbing with Simpson outdoors on reasonably hard stuff, ever, by which I mean anything above E6, 8a redpoint, 7C or thereabouts. There is some evidence available on the net that he has done this and more (possible E7 FA, probably cut bouldering video up to V12 in the Gunks, Nightmare in the Frankenjura), but please don't be shy, it would be interesting to see if it is possible to come up with some idea of his climbing habits and abilities.

Thanks

Luca
jon 12 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi:

I must be really thick - I can't see it.
TobyA 12 Dec 2010
jon 12 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks Toby. I was expecting some revelations.
JJL 12 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:

Excellent summary from Peter Jones near the end (currently!) of the 8a.nu thread
blablabla12 Dec 2010
In reply to lmarenzi: The v12 in the gunks is really v10 apparantly. Do some research. 8a.nu
lmarenzi 12 Dec 2010
In reply to blablabla:

I'm going to take your word for it.
Dave C 13 Dec 2010
In reply to blablabla: You cite 8a.nu and claim you've done some research? That's really very funny.
ali k 13 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:
> Nobody has anything new to add though.

Looks like Jens is going to try and get some comment out of RS...good luck!
chris j 13 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> (In reply to Shani) The more it goes on the more dislike I have for the cheating beggar. The wee fanboys who are saying "but Rich was my hero, please believe every word he spews" are becomming equally tiresome. Just cos a guy is strong does not make him a bastion of honesty. He is a liar plain and simple.

I'm not particularly concerned either way but we've now had three threads in recent weeks which in the first one established there's no evidence for Rich Simpson's running or boxing claims and that he is not going to make any comment on the matter. The 2nd and 3rd threads have covered the same ground and not brought anything new to the argument.

I don't think the continual rehashing of the same fairly tired arguments and thinly veiled character assassination reflects well on UKC at all and I'm surprised the powers that be haven't locked this thread. If this was UKB then it would almost certainly belong in the log pile.

ali k 13 Dec 2010
In reply to chris j:
Wrong.

The 1st thread on UKC established that there was no evidence for RS's running or boxing claims and brought to people's attention the doubts surrounding his climbing claims.

The 2nd thread on UKB to a certain extent just covered the same ground, apart from confirming the fact that RS has been dropped by his sponsors.

The 3rd thread on UKC (this one) established that Jack Geldard and Ian Parnell had both started an investigation into this, but that it was nearly impossible (or at least too time consuming) to continue without RS's help.
It also established that Pete Harrison (one of the authors of the new NWL guide) had enough doubt about the ascent of Liquid Ambar that he felt it should not be included in the guide, until RS was willing to provide some evidence for it.

The 4th thread on 8a.nu has opened the debate up to the wider community, in the hope of gaining some answers in the absence of RS's cooperation.

Despite taking a while to get to this point, each thread has made a little bit of progress and hopefully brought us a little bit closer to finding the truth, don't you think?

> I don't think the continual rehashing of the same fairly tired arguments and thinly veiled character assassination reflects well on UKC at all and I'm surprised the powers that be haven't locked this thread. If this was UKB then it would almost certainly belong in the log pile.
I could be wrong about this, but I think it's fairly telling that UKC have decided to let this run. And also that most of the news stories regarding RS have been deleted from the UKC database (try it for yourself). This may be a sign of their altered position on this matter? (pure speculation of course!)
Shani 13 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:


Also this thread has turned up some 'in the know' people. Fred99 seems to be pretty well up on running with his various contacts and Tam Stone's boxing contacts and 20 year subscription to boxing news would seen to put his opinion above others (assuming both of those two are honest!).
The Jazz Butcher 13 Dec 2010
In reply to chris j:

Hi Chris,

I disagree that this, and other threads, are a continual rehash. There have been lots of important small pieces of information that all help to put together a bigger picture.

Perhaps certain people are keeping very quiet in order for this subject to quietly slip off the radar and disappear into the ether.

Whilst I agree that character assinations are not helpful the whole subject is too important to simply drop and forget about in favour of the next great 'whatever'.

Claims regarding important and history making ascents have been made and accepted by the climbing community in the time honoured tradition of good faith. There is now the possibilty that some of these claims may not be true.

The climbing press and media, which was happy to make copy from the initial claims, must now look into this more thoroughly and report its findings back to climbing community as a whole.

Regards,

Rich.
chris j 13 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k: You do seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about this. For the record (and my last word), the way you tried to start the thread anonymously was a pretty distasteful way to go about it, IMO.
foundryclimber13 Dec 2010
In reply to chris j: right. heard a rumour that hte liquid ambre ascent is now confirmed in the guide book - anyone confirm this?
bull2010face 13 Dec 2010
In reply to chris j:

If an investigation is underway and RS refuses to comply surely there is nothing to be done but to accept the nearly 99% possibility that his claims are false. His ascents should be recorded as 'claimed'. I'm not saying categorically that he is a liar but his ignoring the situation does not mean that he is innocent and that he should be given a break.
petejh13 Dec 2010
In reply to foundryclimber:
Who told you that? It isn't true.
Bulls Crack 13 Dec 2010
In reply to bull2010face:
> (In reply to chris j)
>
> If an investigation is underway and RS refuses to comply surely there is nothing to be done but to accept the nearly 99% possibility that his claims are false.

As one Bull to another: how do you work that one out?
Tam Stone13 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1: That 8a website must be the worst climbing site in existence. What frustrating waste of time it is.
jon 13 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

I'm so glad you thought so too. I thought it was just me.
bull2010face 13 Dec 2010
In reply to Bulls Crack:

The key word being 'if' ;)
tobyfk 14 Dec 2010
In reply to ali k:

> The 1st thread on UKC established that there was no evidence for RS's running or boxing claims and brought to people's attention the doubts surrounding his climbing claims.
>
> The 2nd thread on UKB to a certain extent just covered the same ground, apart from confirming the fact that RS has been dropped by his sponsors.

Ali, I have only just seen this and want to make a couple of what Alan James calls "points of order".

1. the UKB thread did uncover some other new information. For example, that no-one in Dai Koyamada's "entourage" did witness RS's success on Action Direct ... previously it seems it was thought they had. In contrast, despite 500+ posts it is not clear that any new information has appeared in this thread.

2. the UKB thread was locked because forum consensus decided that Rich himself should be given a chance to respond. It remains locked for that reason.
daveje 14 Dec 2010
In reply to tobyfk:
> In contrast, despite 500+ posts it is not clear that any new information has appeared in this thread.

I don't agree. The most interesting information in this thread is that Jack Geldard has tried to investigate this, contacted Rich Simpson, and Simpson has refused to provide any information or make any kind of comment whatsoever. This is quite, ahem, rich, considering the role Simpson played in attacking Ben Heason, and the way Simpson demanded verification of Heason's climbs.

> 2. the UKB thread was locked because forum consensus decided that Rich himself should be given a chance to respond. It remains locked for that reason.

Then it'll stay locked forever.
jfw 14 Dec 2010
theory number 347:

"rich simpson outraged by other climbers making sponsorship money for unverified/doubted ascents - decides to show up the "establishment" in elaborate joke(by making increasingly outlandish claims), while at the same time making the sponsorship money that he feels as s dedicated and talented climber he rightly deserves".

discuss
mrchewy 14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw: Nowt to discuss... I reckon that's not far from the truth having read all the above.
Tam Stone14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw: Theory 1:

fairly fit, talented and very ambitious climber bursts onto the scene with some very impressive indoor climbing feats. Some people elevate him to hero status as he campus on one finger. Climber set himself some lofty goals off the back of his training prowess and fails miserably. Realises climbers are easy to dupe especially the ones impressed by his training videos and tells lies about his ascents. After he is disbelieved by some he sets out to destroy one of his doubters climbing career, which again fails miserably. He now decides to pretend he is ace at boxing, noted as the toughest sport in the world. Swiftly finds out he can't fight so has to fabricate a fantastic boxing record and lies about a potential place on a very high profile Olympic squad. Decides to come back to climbing and also realise his running ambitions. Failure again so more lies to compensate. Sponsors tell him he can't live of his unwitnessed ascent of Action Direct forever so he tries to emulate two titans of climbing, Alex Huber and Uli Steck, failure again so the back up plan of lies is rolled out. Doubts arise from all corners, threads start on various sites and slowly but surely the truth emerges, muddied only by afore mentioned fannies who are impressed by training video.
Dave C 14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw:
> theory number 347:
>
> "rich simpson outraged by other climbers making sponsorship money for unverified/doubted ascents - decides to show up the "establishment" in elaborate joke(by making increasingly outlandish claims), while at the same time making the sponsorship money that he feels as s dedicated and talented climber he rightly deserves".
>


Pretty much my take on it. Would you include his 'studying natural sciences at Cambridge' after spending some time in a library and taking an exam as one of the outlandish claims? IS there any such subject as 'natural sciences'?
George Ormerod 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

I prefer the idea that it's a whole Joaquin Phoenix style spoof act of performace art. Maybe he's growing a huge beard as we speak.
Coel Hellier 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave C:

> Would you include his 'studying natural sciences at Cambridge' after spending some time in a
> library and taking an exam as one of the outlandish claims? IS there any such subject as 'natural sciences'?

Yes there is. http://www.cam.ac.uk/about/natscitripos/
steve456 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave C:
> IS there any such subject as 'natural sciences'?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=cambridge+natural+sciences
SARS 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

you come across as ver bitter
ali k 14 Dec 2010
In reply to tobyfk:
> 1. the UKB thread did uncover some other new information. For example, that no-one in Dai Koyamada's "entourage" did witness RS's success on Action Direct ... previously it seems it was thought they had.
Apologies Toby, I forgot about this.

> In contrast, despite 500+ posts it is not clear that any new information has appeared in this thread.
I agree with daveje on this point, and disagree with you here. The fact that Simpson 'formally' refused to make any comment to Jack Geldard and, presumably, Ian Parnell is new and very important information. This is quite different from refusing to enter into a forum debate on the subject.
Dave C 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier & Steve456:
Ta! Teach me to be lazy about checking Google.
Monk 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave C:
> (In reply to jfw)
> [...]
>
>
> Pretty much my take on it. Would you include his 'studying natural sciences at Cambridge' after spending some time in a library and taking an exam as one of the outlandish claims? IS there any such subject as 'natural sciences'?

Yes there most certainly is. It covers pretty much all science at Cambridge. The student is introduced to a wide variety of science and specialises as they choose (Biochemistry, Physics etc.). It's a very well respected course. This is also one of the most easily verified claims. A quick search on the Cambridge website will reveal that there is indeed a Richard Simpson studying Natural Sciences and gives you an eamil address and college affiliation.
Tam Stone14 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS: My last post caused this comment? Please explain 'bitter'. The guy is a cheat and liar, who used gullable people to back up his world class cheating and lying campaign. Annoyed and disgusted would be closer to the mark however I await your explaination.

An example for you lad. Recently one of my favourite fighters, Antonio Margarito was discovered to have doctored handwraps before his bout with Shane Mosley. They were removed before the fight and he went on to lose by spectacular KO, which had nit happened to him before, indeed one of his great attributes was his iron chin. Afterwards he was fined heavily (£100,000) and suspended for 1 year. All his victories are now in doubt because people think his punch power came from the wraps. Far from being a fan anymore I now view him as a disgusting cheat. Get the picture?
Shani 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

And the requirements would appear to be A/*s in at least two science subjects:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/natsci/requirements.html
ghisino 14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw:
> theory number 347:
>
> "rich simpson outraged by other climbers making sponsorship money for unverified/doubted ascents - decides to show up the "establishment" in elaborate joke(by making increasingly outlandish claims), while at the same time making the sponsorship money that he feels as s dedicated and talented climber he rightly deserves".
>
> discuss

memories of a good climbing mate of mine reappear. Not world class but very talented boulderer and sport climber, up to font 8b and sport 8c+ a few years ago...
He did not set up a joke but was constantly putting himself in a "me against the whole world" position.
He had his own representation that one of the fulcrums of "the establishment" in Italy was the town of Lecco, about 1h30' drive from where we lived.
His way of making his point was to repeat many of the hardest/most iconic routes in the Lecco area and announce them on his 8a.nu page with a significant downgrade and/or disturbing comments ("polished as hell, the whole crag is crap, i'd better stay home and hangboard next time"... and such).
He did not crave sponsorship, but it was not a matter of wanting to be discreet or such...
he said that the money was too litte to be worth the pain in the ass anyway ("and even if you're dave graham it's not that much") and he only considered the best possible gear ("i don't give a f*ck to be sponsored by a lousy climbing shoe company like our friend over there. I like katanas and if lasportiva wants to give me free katanas, that's fine, but i won't use and promote another shoe, especially a crappy one, just because i'm sponsored").


just making the point that such personalities do exist.
Tam Stone14 Dec 2010
In reply to SARS: Come on, even his girlfriend has seen no video eveidence or witnessed his hard ascents when they were together.
MJ 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:

"Come on, even his girlfriend has seen no video eveidence or witnessed his hard ascents when they were together".

What, he even lied about his sexual prowess?
Monk 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Tam Stone:
> (In reply to SARS) Come on, even his girlfriend has seen no video eveidence or witnessed his hard ascents when they were together.

How do you know this?
ali k 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:
> In reply to Tam Stone)
> Come on, even his girlfriend has seen no video eveidence or witnessed his hard ascents when they were together.

> How do you know this?
Common knowledge among people who know his ex-girlfriend and have specifically asked her about it. PM me if you want names.
In reply to all:

I can confirm that we have removed the news items and articles from UKC that relate to Rich Simpson's achievements. The removal of these news items has altered the Google search for 'Rich Simpson' which currently still links to one our removed items, and this thread. Last week it was 50% UKC News items about things RS had claimed.

We will not be considering his repeat and first ascent claims when writing future Rockfax guidebooks.

There was talk of an article about this whole saga. At the present time we have decided not to run any article - there is little that we could reveal that hasn't already come to light anyway.

We will only consider any future news reports from Rich Simpson if he co-operates with us in verifying, or otherwise, his previous claims.

I will let this thread run for the rest of today for people to respond to this, then we will close it.

Alan
Shani 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Horses and stable doors?

As a climber and a guidebook collector/geek I do applaud this action (finally) being taken.
Ian McNeill 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
well said -

'tis a funny old world Ah to have UKCLeaks ....better get it registered now b 4 anyone else does .....

Morgan Woods 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Shani:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
>
> Horses and stable doors?

not sure if it was remarked upon but there were some fairly prescient words on this UKB thread linked above:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,5192

from Fiend:

"Who actually witnessed the ascent then eh :roll: :wink:"

which was back in 2006.....were things fishy then?
Chris the Tall 14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw:
> theory number 347:
>
> "rich simpson outraged by other climbers making sponsorship money for unverified/doubted ascents - decides to show up the "establishment" in elaborate joke(by making increasingly outlandish claims), while at the same time making the sponsorship money that he feels as s dedicated and talented climber he rightly deserves".
>
> discuss

theory number 347a:

"RS did indeed climb Action Direct, but found success after so much effort was a bit hollow. He also felt that he was not getting as much income from sponsorship as an athlete of his talent and dedication deserved. In particular he was dismayed by the fact that other climbers derived more income from simply being photographed on a number of hard routes than he got from actually climbing something even harder.

So he decides to play the sponsorship game a bit differently...."
Bill Davidson 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Morgan Woods:

Quote from Doylo
'not to mention doing it again without mats or spotters. He's no one trick pony this guy!'

There's a surprise!
ghisino 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

i'm not brit not familiar with the uk scene and really come here just to waste time.

in this perspective i am curious if suspects/rumors of RS making false claims have always been running or if they are something that exploded this year.

if the second is the case, it's very different to how these things seem to run in italy and france (for which i have direct experience).
Over here there's a lot of rumoring about a lot of people and a general climate of mutual disbelief, at least when one is too loud&proud about his/her achievements (no matter how unimpressive they are. Loud&proud=cheater&liar, unless there's consistent evidence of the contrary).
It goes without saying that the rumors run much faster when they regard a big name : i.e. "everybody" in france knows that Ms X has been winessed hanging from the draws all day on the route Y thet she then claimed OS...
all this is well reflected in formums.
At the same time, clear and direct statements by the media or anyone in the climbing industry are very rare, unless it's in defense of someone.
Even indirect allusions to a specific claim by a specific climber are seen as quite surprising.
(for instance : http://www.kairn.com/news__72693.petits-mensonges-amis.html )

this is why i am surprised that :
-i've never read anything against RS before this autumn
-at the same time, a few weeks are sufficient to have an "official" position

anybody is willing to comment and give me a bit more cultural insight?
UKB Shark 14 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino: anybody is willing to comment and give me a bit more cultural insight?


On the contrary there has been a lot of discussion on UK forums with respect to dishonest claims (Si O Conner, Malcolm Kent, Scott McLellan etc)so in that respect I don't think there is any diffrence.

In those and most cases suspiscions arise early because they have not been seen to be climbing at a level that would suggest they were capable of the ascents. This was not the case with Simpson who is regularly witnessed in person and on video toasting hard problems and pulling off numerous one armers and hard campuss moves.

Once you have had a claim accepted its not so hard to build other claims on it as you have an accepted trackrecord. Accusing somebody of lying is a big deal especially if they are an accomplished boxer. When asked Simpson was a dab hand at aggressively turning on 'doubters' to deflect requests for evidence. Now he has clammed up.

The anomolies surrounding Simpson's claims have been a regular topic of crag chat for a few years. Personally I was aware of it over two years ago but it is only with the recent running and alpine claims that things seemed increasingly bit far-fetched.

As for there being an 'official' position - there isn't one. No sponsor or organisation has made a statement AFAIK.
DaveHK 14 Dec 2010
In reply to ghisino:

From what you say it sounds like much more is taken on trust in the UK scene which is why folks really take the hump when it looks like someone might be telling lies
ClimberEd 14 Dec 2010
In reply to DaveHK:
> (In reply to ghisino)
>
> From what you say it sounds like much more is taken on trust in the UK scene which is why folks really take the hump when it looks like someone might be telling lies

That is what I would say, rather than Shark's take on it.

I don't hang around the top echelons of the UK climbing scene, but it seems that you are considered 'right unless proven wrong' whereas in other countries you are 'wrong unless proven right'

Hence the outrage.
John2 14 Dec 2010
In reply to ClimberEd: Before the thread gets locked, the McClure article is available here http://www.climbmagazine.com/welcome-archives.aspx . You need to search on Simpson, then st up a user ID to be able to see it.
ghisino 14 Dec 2010
In reply to shark:
>
> As for there being an 'official' position - there isn't one. No sponsor or organisation has made a statement AFAIK.

i meant "official" as for :
coming from anybody holding a position in any climbing related media and/or industry, and said/written in a context that makes it hard to mistake it for an "off the records" chat among friends"
ghisino 14 Dec 2010
In reply to John2:
> (In reply to ClimberEd) Before the thread gets locked, the McClure article is available here http://www.climbmagazine.com/welcome-archives.aspx . You need to search on Simpson, then st up a user ID to be able to see it.


read.

if i can comment, i imagine that such an article makes as many haters as fans.

i admit that myself i tend to be a "believer" (at least for some claims) because, after personal experience, i'm partial to this kind of characters.
Maybe if he had been mr. nice guy, if he had made boring statements as "the line is all the grade is nothing", if he had constantly stressed the central role of ethics, aesthetics and so on, i'd welcome the lying accusations with pleasure...
lowersharpnose 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I think you should write the article on Rich Simpson covering his claims on rock, in the ring and on the race track. Ideally it will cover the evolution of the story and its treatment in the climbing media.

So what if it does not have a definitive and neat ending.
aln 14 Dec 2010
In reply to jfw: He can do that if he likes. Just don't give him any money.
petejh14 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:
Seeing as this thread is going to be locked and I have the feeling that Alan won't be allowing anymore speculation to appear on UKC - I'd like this to be on some sort of public record before I forget the details:
Rich got in touch with me 4 days ago (on the 10th December) following my request for him to validate his ascent of Liquid Ambar for the forthcoming North Wales Limestone guidebook. He told me that he'd give me the name and contact details of his belayer for Liquid Ambar and Hubble provided I accept his 3 conditions, which were:
1) That his (the belayer's) details (name, email etc) are not placed on internet forums or in widespread media of any kind.
2) That only one person (yourself preferably) makes contact to verify my ascent.
3) That you request verification for the purposes of the historical record in your guidebook, and do not mention debates on ukc etc – he abhors this type of thing, and would probably be reluctant to get involved if he believed that your requests were in direct response to forum speculation.


I see these as smokescreens and attempts to control the situation - typical of his behavior whenever he's been questioned. His conditions are unacceptable to me for these reasons -
they isolate me into being partly responsible for supporting his reputation without his proof being open to public scrutiny,
it's totally unrealistic for Rich to try to keep his means of validation separated from the internet climbing community by which so much of the doubt has been raised about his claims,
Rich's behavior, by which I mean his long-term refusal to respect the wishes of any member of the climbing community by supplying proof when he's been respectfully asked to do so, has ensured he isn't in a position to demand 'conditions' from anyone,
and lastly there's no reason for there to be any great secrecy in this matter, it's a claim of an ascent up a little bit of a cliff near Llandudno - we're not talking about international espionage here, the only possible reason for wanting secrecy is if Rich has something to hide.

I emailed Rich back today to tell him either to verify his ascent of LA in an open and honest manner by giving me a straight answer, or consider his ascent struck from the record, he hasn't replied yet. I've spoken or been in contact with a lot of Rich's acquaintances over the last week to get a more complete picture, none of them supported Rich's claims and they actually raised even more doubts then they cleared up.

People have always been open and receptive to Rich proving the doubters wrong but he's never done so which is a shame, because he's a 'nice' guy and one of the strongest climbers around. As things stand I believe Rich has lied about all of his most impressive sporting achievements.
Matt Rees 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Gfunk:
> (In reply to friend1)
>
> 500
>
> yes!

I know, but it's hardly "Steve Webb North Face Down Jacket for Sale" is it?

Aaaah, the good old days.
wilding 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Matt Rees:

Steve Webb, now there was a real thread.

Would R. Simpson have got an offer from cambridge without his claims and climbing sponsorship? My understanding of the oxbridge selection process is that extramural activities are essential for distinguishing all those A/A* candidates. Even if the interviewer didn't fully understand climbing, boxing or running the sponsorships and many claimed accomplishments would have been impressive.
lmarenzi 14 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:

Quite right. Hopefully other guidebook authors will do their homework on this in the same way that you have.

Well done to UKC for having removed some dubious claims from their database of news stories. Hopefully other news sites and magazines which have run the same or similar stories will make their own inquiries and act when they have come to their own conclusions.

It would beggar belief if no journalist could be found to publish a story which would be about one of climbing's most insiduous, high profile and long lasting frauds.

doylo 14 Dec 2010
In reply to petejh:

I think Rich was just making sure that the persons details weren't posted all over the internet. Of course he accepts that the guys name needs to be published. He does care about the history of climbing and thats why he replied to you. He is happy to provide his Liquid Ambar belayer (same guy who belayed him on Hubble) details for verification for the guidebook. I am also hoping he will cooperate with Alan or Jack to verify his other climbing achievements.
slinky wizard 14 Dec 2010
In reply to doylo: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

pasbury 14 Dec 2010
In reply to doylo:

Bloody hell - it's only the name of some guy/girl who he went climbing with! nobody expects to see his/her mobile No/IP address/blood group or anything
wilding 14 Dec 2010
In reply to pasbury:

To be fair to Doylo and R. Simpson I wouldn't want my name published on the internet under these circumstances. The belayer will now face a lot of scrutiny, disbelief and questioning.
ghisino 14 Dec 2010
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to pasbury)
>
> To be fair to Doylo and R. Simpson I wouldn't want my name published on the internet under these circumstances. The belayer will now face a lot of scrutiny, disbelief and questioning.

+1
same if it was me.
and i'd add that it would be even more pissing to undergo all te scrutiny and disbelief if i was just "a guy he went climbing with", to take the brilliant definition given above, and not a genuine friend.

mrjonathanr 14 Dec 2010
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to Matt Rees)
> My understanding of the oxbridge selection process is that extramural activities are essential for distinguishing all those A/A* candidates. .

I can't speak for Cambridge but I'd think not. Being smart and highly motivated are the key criteria. Other attributes are nice but secondary.

They won't expect him to box his way through the Tripos.

> if the interviewer didn't fully understand climbing, boxing or running the sponsorships and many claimed accomplishments would have been impressive

Sure. But they'll have accepted him for his intellectual qualities, not prowess elsewhere.
Si dH 14 Dec 2010
In reply to mrjonathanr:
I can confirm from having been there that none of these things make the blindest bit of difference
Enty 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Si dH:
> (In reply to mrjonathanr)
> I can confirm from having been there that none of these things make the blindest bit of difference

So you've sat behind the desk at an interview? Two people, both with same quals, same background, same charisma - nothing to split them except their good looks and the fact that one has run a mile in 4 minutes and done a marathon in 2h30 and is also paid to rock climb and you're not in the slightest bit influenced by this on their CV?

Pull the other one.

E
Michael Hood 14 Dec 2010
In reply to wilding:
> Would R. Simpson have got an offer from cambridge without his claims and climbing sponsorship? My understanding of the oxbridge selection process is that extramural activities are essential for distinguishing all those A/A* candidates. Even if the interviewer didn't fully understand climbing, boxing or running the sponsorships and many claimed accomplishments would have been impressive.

The standard offer for Natural Sciences at Cambridge this year was 2As and 1A* (with the A* in a science subject). That was if you got through the selection process to even get an offer. RS's "achievements" may have helped him get an offer by showing he was a suitable candidate, but it's unlikely to have lowered the offer. 3As wasn't good enough this year.
wilding 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Si dH:

Ah, I am misunderstanding the selection process in the UK. I live in the USA were extracurricular activities, especially sporting prowess, are as important as academic grades to the selection process. Athletes are actively recruited and given financial aid. A four minute mile would get you into any college in the USA. I am pretty certain that the climbing accomplishments would also result in admission in most US colleges.

ClimberEd 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Si dH)
> [...]
>
> So you've sat behind the desk at an interview? Two people, both with same quals, same background, same charisma - nothing to split them except their good looks and the fact that one has run a mile in 4 minutes and done a marathon in 2h30 and is also paid to rock climb and you're not in the slightest bit influenced by this on their CV?
>
> Pull the other one.
>
> E

No, but I have friends that do, as well has having gone to the other one.

And, put simply, the situation that you suggest above never happens and decisions are made on their academics (on paper and in interview)

ClimberEd 14 Dec 2010
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to Si dH)
>
> Ah, I am misunderstanding the selection process in the UK.


Yes. We don't put any emphasis on this in the UK (in the way you do in the US)
wilding 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Michael Hood:
> (In reply to wilding)
> [...]
>
> The standard offer for Natural Sciences at Cambridge this year was 2As and 1A* (with the A* in a science subject). That was if you got through the selection process to even get an offer. RS's "achievements" may have helped him get an offer by showing he was a suitable candidate, but it's unlikely to have lowered the offer. 3As wasn't good enough this year.

That is good. Top US colleges are notorious for lowering the academic requirements for athletes. Although, their rationale is that achieving athletic feats involves a lot of time. Also, athletic success brings glory (and alumni money) to the college.
mrjonathanr 14 Dec 2010
In reply to wilding:
The one thing which might be very helpful is to be an olympic standard rower applying for a postgrad position. I don't believe there would be any lowering of the academic standard however.
Si dH 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Enty:
I've been through interviews at Cambridge successfully (albeit nearly 9 years ago now, but that place doesn't change fast) and (obviously) know many others who have too. It helps if you are keen to get involved in college life and contribute socially as well as academically, and this often involves sports (or music, or whatever) but your ability doesn't come in to it - its all about enthusiasm to get involved. In fact if you were only interested in playing for the Blues (Uni 1sts) you would score less well than someone who wanted to captain the college 3rd team. The only possible exception to this (and Im not sure if even this really happens much) may be if they were actively looking for a new university rowing or rugby captain (etc) - but then they'd look for a lot more evidence than what you said in an interview.

In terms of giving interviews, I'll be interviewing a couple of people for jobs for the first time next month. I'm not sure yet what will be the differentiators, but I know one thing - it wont be running or climbing ability! That's a pretty bizarre thing to say.
Si dH 14 Dec 2010
In reply to Si dH:
anyway, completely irrelevant to the thread...
Ok, time to close this now I think.

Alan

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