UKC

I think it's safe to say that trad climbing has a certain etiquette of things you should and should not do, the south west has some specific nuances to the game we all play.  

So when I went to a local crag, for a session on what I had hoped to be my next project "Booby Prize". A classic climbof the area. Especially with the insitu titanium pegs to add to the natural pro. But keeping it within my range of difficulty and danger. 

Only to find that they had been removed by other climbers, who wished to not use them. For this route and other "possible" climbs.

I instantly felt this against the ethic. Now making the climb possibly E8. Quite likely out of my reach now.

What are people's thoughts on these actions. Just, unjust, should they be reinstated, new pegs fitted. Old ones returned and hammered again .

Do you know if the person who removed the peg subsequently climbed the route without it, or were they being even more of an arse than that?

As the guide book author and crag moderator, I have been contacted by a number of local climbers who have either climbed Booby Prize (E7 6b) or were working on it. It is fair to say that none of them were happy about the removal of the pegs and other associated actions. (Note, there is no way I'm ever going to climb the route - it's far too hard for me, so it could be argued my opinions are not relevant.) I also spent half an hour on the phone talking to Andy Grieve, who made the first ascent.

Booby Prize is a Culm test piece, and a fine route. Andy was at pains to point out that he climbed the centre of the wall, and did not start on the right as many people now do. As I understand it, Ian, who removed the pegs, thought he was climbing a new line to the right of Booby Prize - No match for climb id:772696, this, however, simply climbs Andy's original line, with possibly a slight variation at the top. Andy tells me, after the ascent Ian phoned him, and now accepts that it is not a new climb.

I think it is a pity Ian did not do a little more research before starting on his project, and for what it's worth, I think the original titanium pegs, which have been placed as some sort of lower off, should be replaced in their original positions.

Edited for spelling.

Sorry, that should read "a new line to the LEFT of Booby Prize".

Left and right confusion, the bane of a guide book author.

Given the information in your post, will the UKC logbook entry for Top Surgery be deleted? 

I could do that,  but am waiting for the dust to settle first...

Not sure if this adds anything but seen Ian’s topo and the pics of him climbing and that is certainly not what I climbed when I did booby prize following the pegs. I don’t think you could clip BP pegs from Top Surgery, they look way out of reach. Ian’s route seems to be about 2 meters to the left of the first peg. So I’m quite confused about this. 

I don’t have an opinion whether they should stay or be removed, but if you want the pegs in you can just put them back in for you ascent, problem solved! 

I spoke at length to Andy about the first ascent. He thinks that the wall will go anywhere at 6b (English tech grade). He climbed the centre of the wall, reaching right to clip the pegs, as that was the best placement available. Many people now start near the right arete, which is slightly easier and not the original line.

It’s a shame the pegs have been removed. As far as I could tell when I had a look a while ago they were in good condition despite being placed on the first ascent 30 years ago.

I can’t really understand the reason for taking them out.  If they were off route for what was thought to be a new route then why the need to remove them?

The suggestion that anyone can just place new pegs and remove them again after their ascent if they want misses the point that doing this repeatedly on what is a comparatively popular route (for its grade in the area) will inevitably damage the placements over time. On the other hand if they are to be replaced more permanently they will need to be titanium again (otherwise they will rot and block the placements) and these are not that easy to acquire.

What has happened to the pegs that were removed? What state are they now in?

I don't have particularly high conviction either way (as seems normal for me) but I would say the pegs seemed well thought out (ie. titanium) and well placed and obviously made the route a lot more approachable/viable to the would be onsighter/flasher/ground upper.  My gut feeling is the character of the route is/was 'better' with the pegs in on this one despite deferring to the general wisdom that pegs on sea cliffs aren't a great idea most of the time. I only managed an ascent in not great style - headpoint with the gear in, sport style but have attached a photo which shows the line we climbed pretty clearly, finding the route unchalked and as visitors to the area armed with just the rockfax description and guidebook photo. The start was quite bold but we were aware of safer/easier option to the right.  Might be interesting to compare the line we took as average visitors to that of the original fa and that of top surgery?

Here are some more photos of unknown climbers Booby Prize (or variation to the right?) taken on 28/8/2022

Having searched on Facebook for some photos of Ian's route Top Surgery there is clearly quite some difference between what Ian climbed and what the climbers are on my photos he is clearly much further left. It looks superb, nice one Ian!

Without knowing the exact line Andy took it is hard to tell if Ian is doing a new route or most climbers are climbing Booby Prize too far to the right not in the centre of the wall as described in both the CC and RF guides.

For a new route it would have to have enough independence from the origanal line and the pegs to be sufficiently off route for variations in sequences to be allowed for on either side. However if this was sufficiently different it does seem strange to remove them pegs as they wouldn't be in close proximity.

This is going to be long, so strap in.

Firstly, after talking to Andy, I agree that what I climbed isn't worth writing up as an independent route. If I were a guidebook author, I'd just add a note to Booby Prize saying 'a left hand pegless variation can be climbed safely on natural gear at around E8'. Even though I'd say about 50% of it is reasonably independent, as Andy says you can climb anywhere on that wall, and the original intention of Booby Prize - 'climb the middle of the wall' is basically the same, just following the line of gear slots keeps you further left than the pegs at the start. The variations can coexist peacefully, with or without the pegs, as if you're placing all the gear to the left you're so far from the pegs it would be very contrived to traverse over to clip them. (I'd like to note that I retracted the new route claim straight after finding out where Andy climbed, I never added the logbook entry for this, and would suggest/request the removal of that provocative entry in the database!).

I took the pegs out after clipping myself into the first peg to take photos, and realising it moved under body weight. It had been there 30 years, in which time the crack has probably got very slightly wider. That peg came out extremely easily (2 light taps of a hammer, I don't believe it would have held many - if any - falls). In retrospect, I guess contacting the crag moderator, starting a UKC thread or going to the next BMC area meet would have been a less inflammatory approach. However, it seemed very clear to me that that peg should come out asap before someone hurt themselves going ground up. For more context, I had a friend who died several years ago after falling onto an apparently good looking peg placement, and I've belayed my wife and several friends on the route ground up, all of whom ended up being quite reliant on that peg, and fully trusting it as it is titanium and still looks shiny. I definitely had a bit of an emotional response!

This made me not trust any of the pegs - at the very least, after over 30 years, it was time for a routine fixed kit inspection! The other two titanium pegs were still very good, the fourth peg (steel angle, Andy doesn't remember placing this so it may have been a later addition) was not particularly corroded, but had snapped off just inside the rock and came out easily with outwards force (using the claw of a hammer), and the final knifeblade was obviously almost rusted through.

Pegs not only provide protection, but can help define a line. Andy told me the aim of the final peg was to give people something to aim for at the top of the boob wall, so people didn't swing round the arete too early. The top peg was so degraded that it was no longer fulfilling this purpose, and was just being used by many as a rebelay to avoid dislodging rock from the top of the crag when abbing in. I'd suggest this is actually one of the more crucial places where a titanium peg would be useful, and since it's in a horizontal crack, should be less likely to expand over time. Since it also gets used as a rebelay, and topping out up the mud slope isn't to everyone's taste, I thought it would serve the route better to put two pegs here so that lowering off is possible if the top out is wet or the climber doesn't fancy it.

The middle two titanium pegs are both next to extremely good trad gear placements, so I didn't think that moving these would be any great loss to the route. The first peg is just above 2 less good placements, and a couple of moves below good gear, and I think is also quite important in terms of defining the line. However, there's the issue of the crack having got bigger. There are a lot of options here: Leave it out, look for a nearby crack that's a bit tighter, put it back in with some resin on the end (a la North Wales peg bolts - FWIW I'm not a fan of this), or find a slightly larger titanium or stainless steel peg. I'm dubious as to the holding power and longevity of stainless placements as they deform less and have less good friction than titanium or steel, and I can't find anywhere that makes titanium pegs anymore. I'll happily post the 3rd titanium peg off to one of the crag moderators to try and reinstate as sensibly as possible in this placement. I strongly believe that having at least one titanium peg in the top placement is of the most service to the route, but the other maybe should be moved back to one of the lower placements if that's deemed necessary to make the original route climbable again. 

I also think the positioning of the pegs detracted slightly from the quality of the line/s, as there are basically two natural lines of holds and gear, with a line of pegs in between them (closer to the right hand line), and varying beliefs on whether the right hand line is Booby Prize or not (the FA viewed the line of cracks to the right as 1: not the line 2: inferior and 3: probably E4!).

The right hand line is completely safe and protectable on trad gear at hard E6 or easy E7, and has been done at least twice since the pegs were removed by Daphne Kyriakaki (having done it ground up with the pegs 2 years ago) and Chris Savage (ground up). Both thought it was great and didn't need the pegs, so I'd suggest only putting the first peg back in, if a good placement can be found. That way, the original line of Booby Prize can still be climbed using the first peg and bomber natural gear, the arete start (Booby Prize RH? I want to suggest calling it Side Boob but I think Booby Prize RH is probably better in the absence of FA details) can be climbed with no pegs or one hard to clip peg at the start, and the left hand variation can be climbed with no pegs. 

Oh also, regarding the crowbar.... Well. There was a giant perched flake to the left of the boob wall, that was natural to put your foot on for one move climbing the left variation. It would have been possible to step left onto it for a rest but I was going to leave it and just write up the LH variation as 'obviously don't stand on the giant choss ledge to the left'. Once I realised it was fully detached and wobbling, though, I thought it had to go - as if it fell, it would be incredibly dangerous for the belayer, and anyone trying the left hand variation ground up would certainly put a foot on it, increasing the chances of this.

It would have come off with a few well timed kicks or an outward pull with the hands - but given how big it was I wanted to be as far above it as possible when it came down, hence the use of a crowbar!

I'll be back down there in the next month or so and will do what I can to clean up more of the debris from the bottom, although I suspect that most of it will have washed away by then apart from bits of rock too big for me to move. 

Following your request Ian, I have deleted Top Surgery from the data base. I wouldn't worry too much about any debris at the base as it is a tidal boulder beach - the sea will soon clean that up. As for replacing the pegs or not, I'll leave that to people who are climbing at that level and can make the call.

As an aside, in the 90s, Andy was a very strong climber, putting up some excellent routes on the Culm and elsewhere. The problem is he didn't realise just how good he was, so a lot of his climbs ended up under graded. I'm not surprised that he thought the right hand start E4, I think he originally gave Booby Prize E5 or E6.

Edit - Brainchild (E5 6a) at Bude pillars looks very similar and may well be undergraded.

"A crag moderator is someone who volunteers to manage and maintain the route information for a particular crag on UKC Logbooks. Tasks include - uploading missing routes, checking existing data for mistakes, putting the routes in crag order, adding buttress dividers and dealing with feedback from other users."

quote from ukc page: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/help2.php

Moderators are not crag caretakers and have no formal role or obligations to do any physical maintenance work at crags they moderate, although some will be quite involved but others may not have even been to a particular crag but just wanted to tidy up the crag database for a future visit.

With your knowledge of the route you are as likely to be one of the best persons to do any replacement of the pegs than anyone else. A discussion here and or the local BMC area meeting would seem prudent first however. 

Just for more clarity on the line of the FA and the line I took. This looks like pretty much the same line as in the photo of the second ascent: https://climbing-history.org/climb/2222/booby-prize , which apparently is what the FA did too. I climbed straight up to the chalked crack/slot up just over a body length up and left from Simon in that photo, from where you naturally get to that slot with the right hand, rather than the left. After this, I believe there's essentially no difference between what I did and the FA, especially if the fourth peg (steel angle) wasn't placed by Andy as he told me. 

The detached choss ledge/flake system that I removed is clearly visible in both the photo of Simon and Ram MKiV's picture. I had also looked behind it to make sure that there was good rock there, as I didn't want to destabilise the cliff if it was just rubble! Fortunately the good rock of the boob wall actually extended behind the detached flake.

I only suggested returning the third peg to the moderator as that's what the OP asked me to do - I agree that that's not part of the moderator's job description.

I'd be happy to put the first peg back in - it's difficult to be sure what the consensus here is though! E.g. looking at the votes on this thread, adding together the votes for 'leave the climb in its new state' and 'climb it as is' currently beats the combined votes for putting pegs (new or old) back in the climb....?

As I explained above, I think my vote would be to put the first peg back in or as close as possible to the first placement with a lot of consideration for making sure it's actually a good placement. If anyone wants to do the route with the first peg in the meantime, it'd take about 15 minutes with a hammer to move one of the original pegs from the top back down to the low peg placement (or thereabouts), as long as sufficient care is taken to make sure it's a good placement.

That said I think there's also a strong argument to be made for not putting the first peg back in - it's a tough call!

So is there now a Booby Prize E8 LH finish with 50% new climbing with no pegs in the UKC logbooks for those of us who want to go and do it? I think if it got deleted cos it climbs half of another route then at least half the routes at Brean should be deleted too. 

No. That is Booby Prize.

If you're taking that view, maybe the right hand version that has become the more popular version of the route to climb should be split into another entry? Even if Andy thought it was inferior, and not what he was psyched for on that wall, he did think it was a different route. 

Just to add my experience of the climb.. we did what we thought was the second ascent back in 2001, but turns out Simon beat us to it!! We climbed the centre of the wall, with the odd scuttle to the right to clip the pegs. The description we had was to climb the centre of the wall, so we did, felt very stiff for E6, more like E7 for the onsight/flash. We then climbed the arête version, we thought steady E4/5.. Looking at the photo's It seems a lot of people are climbing the arete now, and I would argue to add that as a separate route ( side boob, would be a great name, as mentioned above) As to the pegs I'd probably put them back where they came from..

The smelter?!

People climb this wall is two different ways, It’s obvious there’s two lines on the wall, whichever they might be. That should be reflected on UKC logbooks. Just yesterday I was at Blue Scar and there are routes there with very little new climbing and they are classics on their own. In fact every crag I can think of has some routes like that, either link ups, different finishes or starts. Raven Tor being the paramount example. They are all recorded. Not sure why it’s such a big deal that only one line is kept on this wall. 

I think it’s safe to say that there is a certain etiquette to being a decent human being, perhaps not starting deliberately provocative threads without exerting a modicum of effort in trying to understand what’s occurred (by messaging/emailing access reps, etc.)?

As for the pegs, actions should be viewed in the context in which they occurred. In the late 90s cams were not as good as they are now and micro-cams were unavailable. The ethics around pegs was slightly different: Yes, things had moved on from full peggery but not to the current (sensible) general antipathy toward in situ pegs (especially in high corrosion environments). The FA used Ti pegs (which aren’t cheap and prob not easy to get hold of, even then) and seems to have acted pretty considerately.

Time moves on, over the years weathering impacts on the pegs/rock and once secure pegs become insecure. Sensibilities change, ethics evolve.

Someone removes the pegs because they notice they’re no longer secure (note: the strength of a peg is - in large part - related to the friction against the rock). I don’t feel anything has gone awry here.

What to do about it now? Probably have a meeting and if people feel strongly enough they might attend. Decide amongst those that attend whether the pegs should be replaced (and if so, by what) or not.
 

I’d vote no pegs but I probably don’t care enough to attend a meeting. Do you?

The LH version is Booby Prize. The RH variation is mentioned in the description. People can record that they did the variation start in their logbook if they wish, or if someone wants to add a separate entry to the day base, that's ok. The only thing is that many people who have logged Booby Prize will in fact have climbed the variation start.

To be fair to Dan, he contacted me expressing his concerns before starting this thread, as had a number of other local climbers. I suggested he started a thread as I felt it needed to be discussed more widely. As I do not climb at that grade, I didn't think it appropriate for me to start the thread.

Looking at the picture of Simon attached I am so confused as ever now because that is the line I climbed, he’s climbing where the pegs are/were. The pictures I saw of Ian he was way further to the left, that’s why I was interested because it looked like a different line and like another chance to get to climb those ‘boobs’. Anyways I guess we can record whatever we want at the end of the day.

I think you gave poor advice*. But, in any case, it may have been more prudent to post a request for information, rather than a poll with limited and rather partial information.

* When do such internet threads ever go well?

I think the FA maybe remembering with Rose-tinted glasses about where the line he climbed went? This was my comment after climbing it:

"Climbed with the proper start which is a lot more serious, felt E7 this way, starting up the arete probably drops it to E6 as it's easier and there's more gear. Opted for the aesthetic line rather than the easiest one, climbing on the left of the titanium pegs at all times until arete becomes unavoidable and only the choss/mud mixture awaits."

For me this was the obvious attempt to climb the middle of a really impressive feature, which unfortunately doesn't quite climb how you want it to from the ground. If you could climb anywhere at 6b then why did the FA not put 4 pegs straight up the centre of the wall? Or add into the description that they traversed off route to clip the pegs, they most likely climbed as subsequent ascents just left of the pegs were the line of holds is...

Also not sure why Ian rescinded his claim as his line seems to be mostly independent up the LHS well away from the climbing of BP by his own admittance in below "topo"

Helpful post. Though maybe a bit unfair on the FA. A line is in the eye of the beholder until it’s climbed (this line being less naturally defined than many trad routes).

Maybe there wasn’t a seem/crack?

Topos and phototopos have never been universal. People mainly just wrote up new routes back in the day, not draw lines on pictures (that was left to the guidebook writers). Some people wrote up their routes more thoroughly than others.

I suspect Ian is being overly acquiescent; but we don’t really have enough information and probably never will.

(Edit: spelling.)

I’ve climbed “booby prize” (with the arête start) while Ian was working the left route and the only point we were even remotely close to each other was at the very top. The start of the LH route could arguably be the original start of BP, but higher up it wasn’t possible for me to climb from the LH route to the pegs, and I also climb the RH version with the pegs on my right. What Ian climbed was way more left than what would be considered the middle of the wall. There are for sure two distinct lines on the wall, even if the RH version is not the official BP. 
 

I climbed booby prize with the arête start without clipping any of the pegs and I think it’s E6 or soft E7. Clipping the first peg already seemed bold to me so going up one more move to bomber gear didn’t make it seem more dangerous. The rest of the gear is bomber and mostly obvious, especially for an E7 climber. If people want the pegs back in for a more amenable climb that seems fine, but I think it’s nice that there’s still an E6/7 way to climb the wall, and an E8 way for people wanting more of a challenge.
 

There are many seams on the left hand line that I climbed - there were 3 very obvious peg placements. I placed two of them on lead (pushing them in with the palm of my hand) and didn't use the third. The titanium pegs would have gone in extremely well with a hammer in all three placements, being slightly thicker than the knifeblades I used. 

I am being acquiesent about giving it a new name out of respect for the first ascent of BP - it's a variation rather than a fully independent new route (the blue line in the topo is what many people have done and logged as booby prize, however I believe the FA didn't stray that far into the light coloured rock at the bottom, and joined the red line for the top). I believe it's what Andy would have climbed if he'd had micro cams and was climbing it in 2025, when an E7 climber's rack is expected to include a variety of small cams. He was inspired by that Comici quote about following the line a drop of falling water would take.

I think it detracts from the aura and percieved quality of routes on a wall if every link up and variation is given a new name. In my book, that's ok at mediocre training crags like Brean or Parisella's, but not on amazing traditionally protected walls like this.

Edit: grammar

Putting the pegs back in would be a backward step IMO. It sounds like there are now two independent lines, both of which can be climbed on natural gear. I can't understand why anyone would want to hammer some fixed gear back in (titanium or otherwise) when it's been proven they can be climbed without it. Well done Ian for pushing standards forward.

I think you're doing yourself a disservice! Looks like you've climbed a similar quality line on an impressive face That I think a good few people that've done BP will be keen to check out.

I know you've spoken to the FA and I haven't but I'm assuming he wouldn't say that your new line diminishes his in anyway?

Replacing the pegs is a tricky question and should probably fall on local consensus as said above, but recording your route as a similar but independent line makes sense.

That was my point though, if something ie gear was obviously off route, then this has almost always been noted in route details with instructions. So Ian's earlier comments about where the FA climbed relative to the pegs seems like a stretch without mentioning their location off to one side.

I agree it shouldn't have pegs, but seems like it has ruffled some feathers and who am I to decide...

I think you’re reading too much into this and I think it’s never going to be known with any certainty. It may be possible, even probable, but it ultimately makes like difference as it will likely be forever unknowable.

As an ascentionist of the route your opinion is as valid as any other ascensionists’, perhaps with a very slightly higher weight given to the FA - since precedent is really all climbing is built upon (not that FAs should have undue/veto’ing rights).

If you want to go down that route (pardon the pun), just call it “Booby Prize (left start, leader placed gear only)” on UKC and, as you write, a note in the guidebook. It certainly shouldn’t be removed from UKC (though a less confrontational write-up [appreciate not your doing] might be better).

The line/variation you took is more distinct a new route than very many routes in the Peak District, or any of Neil Gresham’s “new routes” in the Lake District. I’m not implying that’s the example to follow but, in terms of a UKC entry, this seems to more than hold its own.

With all due respect to Ian though, I'm not sure I'm mad keen on the name if the new route does stay.  

I am on holiday, s do not have a copy of the Culm guide to hand, but I'm fairly certain the blue line on that topo is incorrect and that the correct line for Booby Prize is more or less what you have drawn as Top Surgery.

As for the suggestion that Andy might not correctly remember his line, I'm certain he remembers it well, he told me he deliberately climbed the middle of the wall as that was the best line, but felt that you could climb the wall anywhere.

Without having read all of this, it might help to add that Booby Prize was done by 2 people a couple of weeks ago on my suggestion, and they seemed to think it was fine without the pegs

 I did it years ago, and have a hazy memory.  I definitely clipped pegs, but put in a lot of other gear as well.  Anyway, both people who did it the other week mentioned that the pegs were no more, but didn't mention any change in grade.  

So the OP suggestion it's now E8 might be a little bit off...

Some people have better memories than others, no doubt. However, the accumulated evidence that human memory is extremely fallible is undeniable.

If anything is clear from this thread, it’s that your knowledge of this matter is rather limited and seems bizarrely partial.

I know that Dave Henderson did an early repeat - 2nd ascent ?

Also as an aside on Andy’s grading. He came from a fine tradition of ‘Plymouth grading’ with Andy as the spearhead but with the likes of Ken Palmer, Nick Hancock and Dave Turnbull it always paid to find out who did the first ascents when you were repeating stuff. Andy was definitely operating at E7 in the 90s even if he might not have thought so himself 

Andy said he has a photo of the first ascent, he just needs to get a decent scan of it.

I’m not questioning the act of Andy’s FA (I think I have actually been advocating for his considerate use of Ti pegs on the FA and the context of the time re: using pegs). Based on what multiple people have said, the area and the era and his FAs, I’m sure he was a very good trad climber. And everyone agrees that BP is a quality route.

Certainly, having pics of the FA would be great to see.  

But all I’ve been advocating for is:

1. a meet to discuss what to do about the pegs now;
2. a UKC entry which describes: the left hand start (which Ian suggests Andy and he both thought was a close but independent start) to BP; AND which notes the use of leader placed gear only.

I hope that’s not too controversial.

This was Ian's topo from insta fyi, not mine, but considering the pegs are (roughly) at the red x 

I think the purple would represent how you're describing Andy climbed it which you must admit would probably warrant a mention in the route description?

Something for tomorrows SW Area BMC meeting ?

I believe the FA description included the cam slot that I've marked with a yellow X, along with my best guess as to the line in dotted purple.

Also the first peg was at least a metre up and right from the first red X (close to where the yellow line joins the blue - tall people could clip it from the arete), that red X is a small cam or slider placement. 

Unfortunately I am away from home with very poor reception, so will not be able to join the meeting...

Please check the topo in the Culm guide, if I remember correctly, I checked this with Andy prior to publication.

 I am away from home at the moment, so cannot check a copy, but I'm sure the line is nothing like the one you have suggested on your topo. It would be handy if someone could post a photo of the relevant page.

Surely if the face is climbable all over the place at approximately the same technical grade, then there are going to be loads of micro-variations that are climbed and without a first ascent video (or masses of photos) it will be impossible to tell exactly where the original line went.

So in any description of that face, surely the thing to do is to try and describe distinctly different lines, but to also mention that neither/none of these are the exact visionary original line as climbed by Andy and that it is possible to do numerous variations/combinations on these lines.

Maybe those whose ascent doesn't exactly fit those eventual descriptions because of their particular micro-variations could claim to have done Booby Prize Buffet.

As requested …

Thanks for that, hope it helps. As you can see, this is not the line marked as Booby Prize on Ian's topo.

Thanks for that, hope it helps. As you can see, this is not the line marked as Booby Prize on Ian's topo.

The climber in the photo does seem to be climbing what's shown on Ian's topo as booby prize though, on the whitish streak near the arete as did Ram MkiV which seems to be the obvious line following the original pegs. Without mentioning climbing the middle of the wall "deviating/leaning right" to clip the pegs how do you expect people to climb the right route. Most people will follow the most obvious path of least resistance past the pegs, leading to "the line" changing over time. The Rockfax line (and chalk in the topo) also following the line on Ian's topo, so I think he can be forgiven for momentarily claiming a new route in the circumstances. FWIW I think the new guide probably should detail "The first ascensionist climbed a plumbline up this wall leaning right to clip the pegs, the wall can be climbed anywhere at 6b and many variations can exist."

On the great peg debate my considerations are

a) Is there natural protection nearby

b) If no pro nearby what are consequences of either it failing or falling off without it.

c) Can it be done pegless with only one grade change?

I would say keep it in it's current state. Not having pegs will make a ground up ascent harder and less attractive, but if they were trash then it was only a psychological difference anyway. Speaking from the viewpoint of someone who has headpointed a couple of E6s and onsighted many more E4s, the E6 headpoints whilst slightly bolder routes were vast levels of difficulty easier on the whole compared to onsighting E4. It occurs to me that this route mostly gets headpoint ascents anyway, even if the route is completely pegless the climber can choose to accept the risk before they start up the lead. If someone *really* wants to ground up/onsight a clip-up they should just go sport climbing or go to Pembroke imho

Just because you drew a line on a picture and your (fallible) memory is that you checked that line with the FA 30 years after their ascent is hardly proof of anything. There really is some head in the sand stuff going on here. As dino points out, the accompanying picture of someone climbing the route even shows “the line” is not followed by some.

It would be great to see the FA pictures.

That picture is exactly the line I climbed when I did Booby Prize, first runner off to the right, then following the pegs. It might be the E6 version, who knows, but it is in the guidebook so it's not surprising is what most people climb. That is not the line I saw picture of Ian on, he was distinctly further to left. I guess we'll have to wait until we see the FA pictures to see what did Andy G climbed, curious to know how he managed to clip the pegs if he was so far to the left.

I was active in Plymouth in the late 90s and Nick Hancock was one of my main climbing partners. This comment shows a lack of understanding of how things were done and what was important.

There wasn't the Internet and social media. New routes were mainly disseminated by new routes books in various climbing shops, and reports in magazines. No-one in their right mind would misrepresent what they climbed - the stakes were too high as it put subsequent ascenscionists safety at risk. As a previous poster noted, it was worth checking who did the FA as there were individual approaches to grading. I have no doubt that the guidebook editor or the area new routes correspondent of a magazine would have rung round and got the correct details - that was what happened.

You can trust the original account because everyone understand that it was important that it was accurate.

I have never questioned the fact of the FA and, indeed the original description fits with the line drawn by Ian/others (and “middle of the wall” is fairly open to interpretation).

What I’m questioning is the current line drawn by the guidebook author and checked with the FA 30 years after the FA.

Also, the idea that FA descriptions were always wholly accurate/honest back in the day is laughable (Gary Gibson anyone?). But, I stress, I’m pretty confident the FA here did report their route honestly at the time and as accurately as anyone else.

if anyone wants to see the first photo in larger format a photo from the same ascent is on the ukc galleries, see below. assuming Luke followed the line of chalk it is quite different to another photo on ukc. But this might just be the within the scoop of the same route and the different camera angles and heights and positions on the route might be making the climbers look further apart than they are. If you compare these photos with the photos on Facebook of Ian Cooper he is quite far left from the 2nd photo below but not to different to the first photo of Luke IMO

Here are some photos of the arete start, climbing to the left of the pegs (the line between the light and dark rock) once booby prize proper is joined, where the line of chalk going up to the first peg is visible, and the chalk on the left hand variation is also visible. 

So for all intents and purposes what Ian climbed is the same as what the FA says he climbed (i'm not disputing that FA btw). This route goes up 'the middle of the wall' and is called "Booby Prize".

Most repeat ascents of "Booby Prize" have actually climbed to the right of this (presumably partly a result of people following the line of pegs, which were placed off to the right of the actual climbing). This route has been popular and IMO warrants a separate name and write up in the guidebook and logbooks.

So what to do about the pegs?

Improvements in climbing style are, and always have been, universally applauded. Routes originally done with a point of aid then get done completely free and that gets recorded. Same goes when a historic route finally gets flashed or onsighted.

In this case Ian has improved on the original style of the FA, climbing 'the middle of the wall' without resorting to any fixed gear. I don't think it's in dispute that pegs are a flawed means of protection. But instead of being applauded, he's had quite a few people get annoyed about it. Including "a number of local climbers who have either climbed Booby Prize or were working on it. It is fair to say that none of them were happy about the removal of the pegs".

Why do we universally applaud improvements in style, except when it comes to pegs, where some people want to preserve routes in the flawed style they were done in 30, 40, 50 years ago? And in trying to do that we get this perpetual cycle of pegs rotting out over time. Or in the worst cases a bolt replacing a 'crucial' peg when the original placement no longer exists.

The first and fourth pegs.

The state of pegs 4 and 5.

I’ll preface this with: I broadly support your position … but it’s overly simplistic in the following point:

There are multiple ways to improve style:

1. Headpoint < Team ground-up < Ground-up < Pearson flash < Normal Flash < Onsight < Onsight solo
2. reducing in-situ gear.

It’s very subjective and situation specific as to which is more impressive, and they can/do conflict.

Ian did not even try to onsight/flash BP using the pegs AFAIK - I think it (direct start, not this nonsense arête start) had already, possibly, been onsighted. So in some ways his ascent was more flawed than a previous ascent.

This is my current best guess at the options on the wall. Where the fa went is obviously hypothetical but given the info on gear and the positioning of the pegs,  it's my best guess. 

Me and Daphne drew lots for who would ab and clean it, and who would get the flash attempt. I lost,  so I abbed it, chalked the holds and brushed it,  pulled on in a few places to demo positions for Daphne then did it first go (with the arete start). I'm really sad I didn't get to have an onsight or flash attempt on it - I think onsighting it would have been quite possible and really fun with chalk,  and much harder without but would at least have been a memorable fight. 

The left hand line,  which I toproped several times before leading, wasn't really in a fit state for me to go ground up on - several holds and gear placements either hadn't been used before, or hadn't been touched in a very long time as quite a few things fell off while I was working it.

Re: your topo

It’s trad climbing, that routes wiggle is not surprising. I’d probably have written the original route up as “climb the centre of the wall keeping pegs to your right” (much as the FA seems to have). Really, that wall can only accommodate a single (trad) route on the face, and a variation up the arête. Anything to the left is too artificially squeezed between the corner and the original route. But, as before, add it as a note to the guide and  as a new entry in the UKC logbooks for the change in style.

Yes, I’m sure it would be but that’s why the “unchalked onsight” is the better style than the Pearson flash (of the arête variation rather than the original) that you describe.

I'm not disputing any of that! Apart from maybe 'the wall can't accommodate a variation to the left', as everyone who has tried it or Booby Prize while I was there agreed that the left variation was so far from the pegs as to feel like a different climb. Look at how much further left my chalk is to the left in the photos compared to the positioning of the pegs.

Maybe, but it's better to remove gear you consider to be unsafe and incur the wrath of the UKC forums, than not and wish you had when someone hurts themselves, or worse.

It is only a climb, after all.

I think you missed the point about trad routes wandering. Trad routes are not defined by a line of bolts (nor your chalk which gets washed off, nor even the topo line). Good trad routes take the “natural” line following features up a wall, in the absence of features the lines of such routes become very broad.

Despite how much I'm posting about this, I'm not really fussed whether it gets written up as a direct version of Booby Prize or just reclimbing the original line of Booby Prize sans pegs tbh, just trying to be as transparent as possible about what I did, and other people can decide whether it looks/feels like the same route or not. I just want people to have all the information possible to make that call. 

The length of this thread and lack of clarity over what is and isn't Booby Prize certainly confirms to me that there's not room for a fully independent route on the wall , and I've got more than enough projects on the go that are definitely 100% unclimbed! 😅

I also can't stress enough that the wall is amazing, and Andy's ascent was an absolutely incredible bit of climbing (and Plymouth-grading).

Perhaps, but doesn’t part of the attraction of trad climbing lie in assessing risks for ourselves and owning our decision making. No one forces us to start up a route?

(I’m not suggesting we can accurately assess the holding power a peg whilst leading, but we can choose whether to start, choose whether to continue, etc.)

I think, in trad climbing, if you’re unwilling to take ultimate responsibility for your decision making then you’re in the wrong game.

Indeed - and in this case,  without the pegs, there are two obvious and very distinct lines of gear placements and better holds, with blanker and less protectable ground in between. 

I think removing these pegs was a good move… it may seem like this has bought the challenge level up for the OP (and others) but as the pegs were bad then it simply means the challenge level is more clear. 
 

Looking at these pictures, I’d love to go and try this route at some point! Possibly ground-up, but also possibly head point if that’s what would be the best challenge level… 

Having recently took a nasty trad fall, I’m not into shonky bits of fixed kit that you can’t assess how good they are. It seems like these pegs don’t make a big difference to the grade of the route and so should be left out. 
 

In regards to the various lines on this wall, although the FA may have climbed a different route to repeat ascentuonists, if this was not a logical line and it is possible to climb straight up to the next gear/peg/whatever then he didn’t climb a very obvious route! It happens all the time in other types of climbing; first acsentionist misses some clever bit of beta that then drops the grade of the boulder/sport route when people repeat it. 

It looks like a great and unusual bit of rock that now has a few ways up it at various grades. Hurrah! 

Sometimes people don’t follow or don’t know about the more strict “rules” of where a problem or route goes, but if they enjoyed climbing it and it felt satisfying to them then great! 
 

Climbing is about freedom isn’t it??
 

That seems challenging to believe given your and everyone else’s topos but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Though I suspect such subjective qualities may lie solely in the eye of the beholder.

This is amazing! So psyched to see this.  I think my turquoise line is pretty much correct then (maybe it's slightly too far right just below the cam slot and then joins the red line slightly too early afterwards), while the line of gear and holds I followed goes straight up just to the left of the line of Andy's left hand rope in that photo. 

There's just way too much stuff on that wall and no discernible line, that's the problem. 

Someone clearly needs to go down it with a few different buckets of paint and colour the grips you're allowed to use for each route. 

The last thing I'll say is that leaving the pegs as they are could have the positive effect of getting people to actually climb something much, much closer to the original line than the popular right hand version (which clearly also still goes at the same grade as it was with the pegs).

In reply to Still-Graham:

I wonder how many of the 'bolt it' voters are serious!

In reply to Still-Graham:

I'm discounting the bolt it votes. That's gone down to the thick end of the wedge.

Amazing bit of data crunching that Ian

All those options in the poll, but what is pegging anyway??

Out of curiosity, and it may be further up the thread, have you done  Booby Prize and, if so, which line?

Better still we could chip off the ones that aren't "in" and that'll be this whole debacle settled.  Or at least in will be once we drill in the bolts and paint the name of it on the bottom of the wall in foot high red paint.