UKC

"I had to get Johnny back in the script when he became defensive about my rant against top-roping. I stand by my argument that top-roping damages the rock! Bolt, peg, top-roping ego – damage done! The narrative needed his feedback and method of approach. It was important because it set the scene. My attempts on the line were foolish, naive and dangerously ‘pushed my luck’. His determination and intense, practiced approach won the day. I took a huge, very lucky fall. Warriors or not, I think we both enjoyed negotiating with our lives in our own way. '
John Redhead

I was interested to read this John Redhead piece this weekend which touched on the Indian Face saga amongst other things.
http://footlesscrow.blogspot.com/2011/11/sacred-ground.html

Sounds like Redhead is saying that Dawes first ascent was flawed in that it was practiced or have I misinterpreted this statement ?

In reply to EricaB:


Not as much as chipping, I would have thought.



Probably so.

Mick

In reply to EricaB:

Different era mate! There were plenty of people around then who believed that top roping a route to death before a lead diminished the achievement.

Thanks for the link. Pleased to see John has lost all his hair before me! Mind you, he's a couple of years older than me.

Chris

In reply to EricaB:

I have maximum respect for John Redhead. The way he climbed all the amazing routes he climbed is just unbelievable. I will never forget the first time I saw the picture of him on raped by affection, such a wild and inspiring shot. His attempts on the tormented ejaculation sound truly wild, with such bizarre ethics and style. Hopefully someone, one day, will finish off his legacy on that wall.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
I think someone may already have finished off his legacy, have you heared of the Indian Face?

In reply to dewiwilliams:

You know what I mean.The logical extension to Redhead's bold approach is obvious and with out doubt romantically inviting. He was one of the best climbers there has ever been, but receives very little attention compared to other climbers of his generation; most probably because to carry on in his footsteps is to almost guarantee death.

In reply to Franco Cookson: Agree with you Franco, clearly top-roping is not as good as just walking up to the rock but it's all good fun.)

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Or because he's madder than a box of frogs? I don't disagree that his achievements are under-appreciated, mind...

In reply to Ben C:

Yeh, that wasn't a veiled dig at Dawes. Onsighting the Indian Face was obviously beyond their (and probably our) generation, but I find it very interesting that no one has really continued Redhead's legacy. (There's obviously still been a couple of very notable ground up ascents in north wales of late)

In reply to Franco Cookson:
The bold approach that included a BOLT. I suppose that did less damage than top roping.
For f*ck sake get a grasp of reality.

In reply to webbo:

I don't want an argument about this on here, but feel free to email me and I'll explain Redhead's approach to you. He was a visionary climber, with a unique style and set of ethics, that yes, were bolder than those of the people who have climbed the tormented ejaculation extension/indian face since.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
As I was around at the time and you were probably not even a twinkle in your dads eye.Don't try to
patronise me " with I'll explain Redheads approach to you". Have you even met the man.

In reply to webbo: I'am not sure that 'being around at the time' is such a good claim to superiority.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Franco, you're getting more arrogant by the hour. Is all this 'education' going to your head or... are you simply showing your true colours?

Mik

In reply to nakedave:

It's a good claim to knowing what you're talking about.

Mick

In reply to webbo:

Considering the beliefs that support these approaches span thousands of millenia and multiple dimensions, 30 years is of little significance. This is a nice topic about an interesting subject and I don't wish to drag it down to the usual levels of tedium, so I've emailed you instead- on the off chance you're not just looking for a public slagging match.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


I'm not sure if knocking back the Absinthe on a school night is such a good idea Franco!

In reply to TobyA:

Brilliant!

In reply to Franco Cookson:
I'm not looking for anything. I have always failed to understand how drilling a hole and hammering in a lump of metal can be considered morally superior to top roping after all you need ab in to place your bolt/do your painting.

In reply to webbo:

you all have mail.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
Can't see it.Must be going to my works email,so I won't have the delight of reading it until wednesday.

In reply to webbo:

I don't think I ever said it was morally superior. I said both approached were inspiring and great. These things aren't competitions, which is perhaps why you can't get your head round it. The glory of variety, and Redhead was certainly different.

In reply to EricaB: Maybe a bit blunt but, as long as the style of ascent is made obvious it is up to the individual to decide how valid it is.
At the time I thought it was all quite impressive and unless you are prepared to stick your neck out...

In reply to Franco Cookson:
Of course it was a competion first with Jerry Moffat then Jonny Dawes.But when push came to shove John Redhead lost out.Remember second place is the first loser.Its easy to cover your loss in all sorts of philsophical drama but the fact is Jonny Dawes was first up the most sort after line in Wales

In reply to webbo:

And that is of course all that matters...

In reply to webbo:

'sort after'?

Err....quite!

In reply to EricaB:

AFAIK: Johnny didn't Top-Rope Indian Face. He practiced some of the moves on abseil.

That's different.

In reply to Tristan Johnson:

According to Extreme Rock, he top roped the line twice in July 1986. It was eventually led in October of that year. There is a gap in the story in the book between these dates, so not sure if it was top roped any more times. Is any of this mentioned in Dawes's new book?

Redhead placed the bolt at his high pont, having given up on his on sight attempts. This was (allegedly) due to the essential Simond No 7 nut being nicked after being left from a previous attempt.

I believe the account in Extreme Rock might not be totally accurate, as has been highlighted by someone on this site at least once...

In reply to MJ:

Legend has it that Johnny had never linked it on top-rope/abseil, of course.

Was JR's bolt placed on abseil btw, or was he going in for the US ground-up on-lead-bolting thing? I have a feeling I once knew the answer to this, but I expect it seemed more interesting 25 years ago.

Anyway, in reply to the OP and in case it isn't obvious by now, JR did indeed feel then and (AFAIK) now that JD stole the line by top-roping it first when he was trying it ground-up.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It was placed on abseil to mark his high point. As remarked by another poster, he'd really given up with it by then. The Simond 7 was much lower down - it was mine actually - and had been lost much earlier.

My view is that John was just a little early in his attempts with the technology then available. Remember, all these attempts were done in non-sticky rubber boots. He tried using resin but it would wear off when he'd done 30 or 40 feet. I think this tends to be forgotten; Dawes adopted a more "professional" approach but he also had sticky boots - a crucial issue on rock with such indistinct holds.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


wow. that's arrogant


surely the whole thread is about (yet again) the indian face saga. so why is discussing it dragging it down to tedium? you only email people when you've said something stupid and are trying to save face.

that's three times in a month. but when you act like you do towards people on here and at the same time arrogantly spray about things you know very little about i can't help myself

In reply to Pete_Robinson:

It's not arrogant, it's a logical statement. To say that Redhead's approach wasn't bold show's ignorance of the facts, so I offered to enlighten him of his evident ignorance. Unfortunately I hadn't considered the possibility that he was not ignorant of the facts, but instead decided to misrepresent the facts due to an obvious issue he has taken with Mr. Redhead.

I saw this thread as having potential to discuss all the inspirational attempts on their face on their merits, but unfortunately a tedious and predictable one dimensional argument has ensued. It's not just a case of 'johnny was right and redhead was wrong', or 'redhead was right and Dawes was wrong', they both did things that the other thought was wrong and they both did things that are indisputably incredible. Viewing it from our very-dawes influenced future point is destined to introduce bias into the analysis.

I offered to email the chap because I know how these forums work and I know a lot of people have issues with me and didn't want a thread about one of the greatest climbers the world has ever known to descend into chatting about me. That would be embarrassing.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


the guy never said JR's approach wasn't bold. not sure where you got that from. by you not mentioning the bolt i would have thought you were the one misrepresenting the facts, no?



this thread has been done amillion times. and was discussed back in the day at length too. what more is their to say about the attempts? you only labelled it as predictable and one dimensional when someone pointed out that your hero placed a bolt.

In reply to Pete_Robinson:


Yes he did. And I quote:

"The bold approach that included a BOLT."

And I did reference the bolt, although you'd have to know quite a lot on the subject to get my reference of "such bizarre ethics"- the painting and fixed gear being the only ethical issues I see here.

I think I label it as predictable because like you say "this thread has been done amillion times". Secondly he's not 'my hero', but a climber I have a lot of respect for and I labelled it predictable when people started getting abrupt with their answers. I didn't say either dawes or Redhead did wrong, in fact I said they both created some brilliant pices of climbing. e

In reply to Franco Cookson:
Is the issue you have with Mr Dawes because he's used the title you were planning to use for your autobiograpthy.

In reply to EricaB:

Franco Derail Shocker!

In reply to Kid Spatula:

I think that's very unfair.

Great thread this one - up there with UKC's finest.

In reply to Chris Shorter: But it does diminish the achievement. That's undeniable?

In reply to Chris Shorter:


I suspect you're bang on the money here - and I guess you should know! I suppose, to many people on here, looking at events across a gap of some 30 years, the odd year or two makes little difference. But the odd year or two can make a huge difference - early 70s wires, late 70s cams, early 80s much more sticky rubber.

I think you're right and that John Redhead was just a little too early. But those photos (by Keith Robertson, with you belaying?) of him going for it... well, that's really something else. And, perhaps, that's his true legacy.

Mick