UKC

Franco Cookson has climbed a variation of The Young at Callaly ground up. The stunning Tombstone Buttress was first climbed by Andy Earl and has since been repeated by Dan Varian, who climbed slightly right at the top, where Andy took a direct line. Ned Feehally and Micky Page have also done a variation which escapes left on bigger holds, avoiding the crux at the top for a grade of Font 8A. Franco is the first person who has taken on the top crux ground-up.

Read more

In reply to Tyler:

It's the opposite for me! Why is such a load of nonsense being publicised? Ridiculous!

In reply to Robadob:

Have to agree and in no way is that a slight on what has been climbed. As he has said for him it was a great piece of climbing and important and that as always is the important thing.

But what has he done, he has climbed the top of a fantastic highball wall by traversing in from the crack.

Sure he loved at and that top boulder problem is great but newsworthy, I beg to differ!

In reply to Macca_7:

I quite like franco's little pieces. You get some journey, he takes time to describe.  I realise he didn't do the whole climb in one push and blurred the line of the definition of ground up. I'm not sure that matters for the piece to be valid, yes it can be argued that it's not "news".

But it's better than just hearing bluntly climber x sent climb y. The end. As tbh, I don't actually care who did what, unless I know them or the crag/climb mean something to me. I'm happy to read a piece about an experience or climb if it's interesting however.

Well done Franco for having minerals and skills, making the effort and ultimately sharing it with us. Maybe non news? Nevermind. Life's bigger. 

Stay safe Franco!  

K. 

In reply to UKC News:

Franco posted a little video over on UKB which clarifies the line a little (by showing how you can step in from the crack pretty easily) youtube.com/watch?v=xXwmE26xZBQ&

In reply to UKC News:

Rather than say, "speaking to UKC", you could simply say that you'd copied and pasted his blog almost verbatim with no further insight added.

https://francocookson.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/the-young/

Given that Franco advertises his services on his website, it might at least be considerate to link to there, even if you have permission to copy and paste his blog to make an article.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Hi Will, 

Franco sent us this text yesterday via email before it was published on his blog.

You might also notice that we have a box at the bottom of the article dedicated entirely to Franco. This links back to his website, his instagram, his twitter, his facebook page and also any articles he's appeared in and written: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/athletes/franco-cookson-79766

Thanks, 

Nick

In reply to Robadob:

Leave the guy alone. He's out there, doing the routes and having fun. That top is hard and high. He hasn't lied about what he did.

Well done Franco, I enjoyed your article.

Si.

In reply to Robadob:

I can certainly see why you'd make that argument, he obviously has not repeated the Young. I know people are saying the top is "only" 7a//+ but even so I'm struggling to think of anything that high and hard that's been highballed ground up but I honestly don't know. It could be that the peril of falling off these moves has been over egged but given some *very* strong and bold climbers have opted not to commit suggests it's not trivial in terms of difficult nor height. So you're right, not news as he's not done the route but certainly noteworthy in that it's very bold bit of climbing and possibly moves things on a notch in terms of highballing boldness?

I'd liken it to when Ben Bransbury attempted impact day, for me one of the most impressive bits of climbing at the time but you might say, 'meh, he didn't do the route' (not saying Franco's ascent is necessarily in the same league, as I don't know exactly how bold the top of the Young is).

Obviously, the bit about Franco's version being the proper line seems a bit spin at best. 

In reply to UKC News:

I love listening to UKC get irate about what is considered significant and therefore news.

I dunno about everyone else, but I have learnt something new about what one of the UK's more entertaining climbers has been up to. That's why I am on UKC. He did something interesting that sparks discussion, and sure he climbed a technically inferior line (not by a great deal, having said that), but in a superior way. It's one hell of an effort. Kudos to Franco for both doing what he did and being very clear in what that was and why he did it.

In reply to UKC News:

(this new UKC format will only let me view the last three comments)

Franco, great effort to do the top out without prior inspection. 

I think what has got peoples backs up is that the title is the ‘Ground Up of The Young’.  What Franco has climbed is a variation start to the Young. 

The true ground up ascent of the Young still awaits, but this ascent has MASSIVELY broken down that psychological barrier that it can be climbed ground up. 

The only other known (?) ground up was by Mikey Page and he avoided the top section off left and then the video title was the Young 8A+ so lets cut Franco a little slack on this one eh?

In reply to Smith42:

Not it isn't, it clearly describes it as a variation, as did Franco's original post about it on Facebook.

He's been perfectly open about his ascent style, and given his reasons for the variation (to help preserve delicate holds), so what's the problem?

In reply to UKC News:

So an eliminate version, which misses out the crux of a classic highball boulder problem is now news. Christ, what has this once magnificent sport become?

Andy F

In reply to remus:

bloody hell that looks ace. the kind of line that makes me sad that im rubbish.

In reply to Andy Farnell:

I was wondering when you'd turn up 

In reply to UKC News:

Loving the irony of a bunch of people reading the article, getting angry and posting to generate further argument, on the basis that this is not 'news'.

You people are deeply confused about what 'news' is

In reply to Andy Farnell:

You again. The bitter old man emerging to have a go at someone with more talent & vision than he ever had - but hopefully now you have that out of your system you will go away.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

To be fair to Andy I don't think he has mentioned anything to do with the ascent or non ascent whichever way you want to look at it by Franco.

He has just stated that it is not news and to be fair hes right!

In reply to Frank the Husky:

You again. The bitter old man emerging to have a go at someone with more talent & vision than he ever had - but hopefully now you have that out of your system you will go away.

In reply to UKC News:

This should NOT have been publicised on ukc. Franco has had a decent day at the crag, failed to climb the route but wanted attention for climbing a bastardisation of the true line. It's not about him being honest either, this is a non route. Who traverses in to a climb, avoiding the hard start then makes a fuss on social media? The crap about wanting to preserve the start is nonsense, who actually believes that?

In reply to UKC News:

P.S Franco should have curbed his hunger for publicity, had a rest day then gone back and done the route. No doubt he could.

In reply to scot1:

It seems you signed up just to say this? Does it feel good to get it out of your system.

More generally I'm a bit bemused by the discussions on what is news or not for climbing. Seems to me what interests someone - I'm interested in any new Scottish (or English or Welsh) winter routes for example - isn't going to interest lots of other people. I'm sure some people are interested in Northumberland highballs, including the minutiae of which holds are used and when, and others aren't.

Can't you just read another story if you think this isn't important?

In reply to TobyA:

I'm just being real. ukc has a duty to report history responsibly. 

In reply to scot1:

I believe it. What reason would there be to lie? If he wanted to deceive people then surely he'd just have claimed he climbed the whole route in one.

He successfully climbed the start, decided that the holds were too delicate to justify repeatedly climbing them to work the upper part of the route, so opted for an alternative. What would you have done?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

So no one else can try the start because the holds are too fragile? Please. You know as well as I do that Franco did it traversing in, didn't fancy a go from the start and wanted publicity for his ascent. This is a no brainer

In reply to scot1:

You could use a real name, or if your name is Scot (2 ts normally isn't it?) something a bit more recognisable, then?

Again I think there's a risk of taking this all a bit too seriously, but leaving that aside it's clear from his report how he did the route, in two halves, so I'm unsure about how reporting that is irresponsible? I suspect Franco might say repeating the start numerous times when it's clear he was breaking the holds just by using them a bit, would have been irresponsible.

In reply to TobyA:

Its irresponsible because its not an ascent! think of how many routes would be made easier if you missed out the start. Franco should really have left the route then came back and crushed the full line. This is an instance of hunger for publicity outweighing judgement. So, he's just done the route but by traversing in, good. if the start is so easy then why not give it 1 or 2 more goes, Im sure the holds will survive.

In reply to UKC News: I'm afraid I don't like what i read about gluing the arete at sandy crag, I don't like what I read about the pockety wall at Howlerhirst and I don't like thiS.

hi Tyler - sorry not to answer your reply. the top wall of the young is highish but pretty steady. I can't think its on the same league as trying impact day ground up! 

In reply to TobyA:

Lets just be clear. Franco had climbed the bouldery start numerous times. He happened to complete the top of the route by traversing in from the easy crack to the right. This was a great achievement but was not the full route. For whatever reason after he'd done this he decided to report his 'ascent'. For him to add in the start would not have taken a lot but it is very important and without it his ascent is void. He's also insulting Andy Earl by claiming that the line isn't logical.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Again, he'd done the start numerous times. I suspect he'd missed that out to work the top, ended up doing it then wanted to get something out of that, rather than just waiting and doing the entire route. 

In reply to scot1:

"Im sure the holds will survive" is the attitude that resulted in the holds having to be glued. 

If you've spent much time on well trafficked sandstone boulders you will know that the holds don't survive. Sloppy technique and trying a problem repeatedly have an impact as do lots of other factors. 

a fun piece of writing, a nice homage to Andy Earls route and an interesting take on how to experience the different parts of the route. It is what it is and doesn't claim to be anything else. Read the label...

In reply to yodadave:

Are you for real? Obviously sandstone is fragile but you're confusing Franco's excuse with the real reason he didn't fancy the start. Imagine traversing into your fave HVS from a Vdiff to the right to avoid the bouldery start, would you call it a new route?

In reply to yodadave:

Remember that Franco had already done the start plenty of times. He did the top via an easier start then used the fragile holds excuse to justify not going back to do the whole line

In reply to scot1:

OK, you don't believe him, I do, either way I don't think he's going to lose much sleep over it.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Probably not, any publicity is good publicity right

In reply to scot1:

You're being a bit of a dick. Are you Andy Farnell?

In reply to aln:

why being a dick?

In reply to aln:

I think you'll find my opinion is widely held and legit. What do you think?

In reply to scot1:

Only you know the answer to that question. 

In reply to aln:

Did you not agree with some of the things I said?

In reply to scot1:

It's so mixed up and comes across as a dig at Franco so I'm not sure 

In reply to aln:

just telling it like it is Aln, from someone who knows

In reply to scot1:

Come out from behind your anonymity and then I'll listen to you, scot1.

Andy Farnell, no matter how much one may agree or disagree with him, never hides behind an anonymous user name.

In reply to scot1:

It's aln. How do you know?

In reply to UKC News:

Franco does seem to get on some peoples tits doesn't he?

In reply to Jon Read:

What difference does my name make to my points? Just curious

In reply to UKC News:

This view that we should only report on black and white ascents is a strange one. If this was all that climbing was, it would be very dull.  Also, to give Andy Earl ownership over that bit of rock and to criticise anyone who veers away from what he did is slightly disrespectful. Andy undoubtedly climbed the line of the crag, but to write off what Ned Feehally and Micky Page climbed would be unfair because it was a similarly impressive bit of climbing, done in one session, at great height. More than anything it contextualises Andy’s superb first ascent; two world-class boulderers weren’t able to climb the direct line in a session, but added a logical addition which takes a different line of weakness.

Likewise, to simply dismiss Franco's efforts and call foul because he didn't tow the party line ignores the fact that he did some hard climbing, well above the deck and ground-up. Whilst previous ascensionists have climbed a harder sequence, they've known the moves and been able to practise them. I’m sure people will go back soon and push the style of ascent forward once again. The non-linear lines and story of this bit of rock are what makes climbing so interesting and enjoyable.

Anyone who has met Franco also knows how absurd the idea is that he has masterminded all this for publicity. He has been nothing but clear and honest in the way he has described what he climbed. He has also expressed his satisfaction with what he climbed, which is the aim of any climber. Not only has it stirred up and interesting debate, but it also adds to Northumberland’s rich tapestry of climbing history. Life really would be boring if success (in a conventional manner) was all that mattered.

In reply to scot1:

It’s because you come over as a tw*t and people want to know you are so they can avoid you in real life. HTH.

jcm

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

Nonsense. 'Success in a conventional manner'? Is that not doing the route? This is not a news item I'm sorry. Franco traverses into a hard route and claims a variation, come on!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Im sure Ive got far more insight than you. 

In reply to Robadob:

I have to say well done Franco cause it is the first repeat. All the others went right or left or avoided the true direct finish. So Rob what you need to do is go and on sight it or shut the F--k up.

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

Also, Im quite sure Mickey and Ned would not claim to have done 'the young', though they were good, easier variations.

In reply to scot1:

Are you going to add anything else (because I think we all know your view) or are you just going to stay angry?

Not got a dog in this fight BTW. 

In reply to scot1:

Quite, I said they climbed a logical addition.

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

It's not though. There's 1 line and 1 only. Traversing in from the right or escaping left are cop outs. This is very clear to anyone who knows climbing

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

There is a much more informed thread on UKB,  if anyone is interested. 

In reply to scot1:

Ever heard of eliminates and variations?

Do you know from first hand knowledge that Franco completed the hard bottom half several times? If so then your points may have some validity.

The way I was interpreting it was that it took many goes to crack and presumably Franco thought it would take many goes to repeat the bottom bit each time he was trying to extend the ground up of the top bit. He didn't want to do that and presumably the rest next to the crack is really good.

Fragility of the holds may not have been the only reason but I can't see what you're upset about. He's reported what he did and not claimed that he repeated the main line.

You may not think what he did is particularly newsworthy. You're entitled to that opinion, but he was trying to push the style boundary and achieved some success that he is satisfied with.

In reply to scot1:

• > Are you for real? 

• Are you Andy Farnell?

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

Great post. Everyone else should shut up after that.

In reply to aln:

No he's not. My views and points have always been my own and I have always stood by them. And I always will.

What Franco did was quite impressive, but news? No.

Had it been a pure, unadulterated ascent, then well done. But news, I'm still not convinced. 

The UKC Franco love in is strange, sad and a bit UKcentric. The boy can obviously climb (as can many dark horses), is bold (as are many others) and can tell a good tale.

But newsworthy?

Andy F

In reply to aln:

Fiend perhaps?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Ha! I disagree with Fiend at times but he's at least honest, says what he thinks and doesn't hide behind other names. Unless he's been banned?

In reply to Andy Farnell:

No, your hate for Franco is strange and sad.

In reply to aln:

Have you tried doing a User Name search?

In reply to aln:

I think you mean 'your questioning of someone who claimed world class grades when he had no prior track record of exceptional performance outside his patch is to be understood and accepted'.

Andy F

In reply to Andy Farnell:

No I think we've moved beyond that and Franco's skill talent and commitment have been demonstrated over and over. 

In reply to aln:

If by that you mean his claimed E10 was downgraded to E8 by someone who has climbed outside his own patch, then I agree. 

Get your facts inline. I've never questioned his ability, just his grading.

Andy F

In reply to Andy Farnell:

Oh FFS grow up and give it a rest. He's a better climber than you or me, who f*cking cares other than you.?

In reply to aln:

I

I've' never said he wasn't a good climber. All I ever did was point out he claimed huge grades with no back up. 

Please, feel free to go back over any of my posts and show where I denigrate his ability to climb.

I do think he's very bold, but really cutting edge, that is yet to be proven.

Andy F

In reply to Andy Farnell:

Jeez....

In reply to aln:

Jeez. Indeed. Please disprove me. I'll wait.

Andy F.

In reply to Andy Farnell:

Though wasn't the upshot that both grades were fair, the latter being with a highly non-standard bit of protection? 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2013/08/birkett_repeats_cooksons_route_and_...

In reply to scot1:

Other people can try the start precisely because it hasn't be ragged by someone doing it 100 times to try the top section.

In reply to Roger Vickers:

That's simply not true though Roger. Check your facts  

What gets peoples goat is that he feels the need to write to ukc about his satisfying day out. Its hard to not feel that there's some desperate headline grabbing going on, whilst there's plenty of folk out there doing more impressive things, without feeling the need to shout about it

In reply to GDes: I think anyone who provides a decent article will get it published, UKC needs content, and there is an audience for it.

Franco seems to be the marmite of climbing..... I don't get why people are so bothered about him, the lovers and haters.

In reply to Roger Vickers:

Dan Varian did the second ascent. The original first paragraph of the article (which is still at the top of this thread) that reads "first climbed by Andy Earl and has since been repeated by Dan Varian, who climbed slightly right at the top, where Andy took a direct line" is incorrect.

In reply to UKC News:

Good lad for wearing a helmet. 

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

Good post. Honesty is the main thing. I'm sure folk are welcome to further improve on the style of ascent. Just be careful with the rock.

In reply to aln:

Maybe better than you but not than Andy. Franco cant climb 8a+, of which Andy has climbed many. 

In reply to ashtond6:

Actually, if Franco went sport climbing he probably could climb 8a+, if not much harder. Whereas I'm highly unlikely to climb very bold stuff again. Been there, t-shirt, book etc.

Andy F

In reply to Andy Farnell:

Fair enough, although I think he's just been on two sport climbing trips and only managed 7c? 

I like Franco, so it's just an observation, not a criticism.

Bold climbing isn't hard climbing imo, it's just stupid but each to their own obviously.

In reply to ashtond6:

What about hard and bold climbing?? 

In reply to UKC News:

What a fantastic write up, and thoroughly inspiring with it.

One of the most important things in climbing has been the sharing and relating of the experience.

The question of what is news or not, threatens to turn shared experience and  motivations into a commodity.

Franco, you are being very open with what fires you up, while also leaving yourself open to criticism. 

I think it's bloody  brilliant.

Thanks for sharing! 

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

It's all relative.. I'm just as intrigued when I hear a friend who might only normally lead severe jumps on Sunset Slab..  

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

Depends on the definition of hard really, I'd say.

Personally I'd much rather see someone climb an 8a safe route, than a 7b chopper. 

In reply to ianstevens:

Is that not an argument against doing things ground up? Traversing in to do the top IS sensible but then you need to go back and do the route from the start surely?

In reply to DAVETHOMAS90:

Do you think there's room for a newsworthy category in climbing then, or should it all be about the personal/shared experience? A lot of people are interested in what's happening at the cutting edge. How would you set the two on a climbing website?

In reply to scot1:

To be able to claim to have done the route as described, yes. I think he has fairly explicitly stated that he is not claiming the route as described. But he has done a section of bold hard climbing without practice or inspection (and so probably 'showing the way' for other ascents). Which is interesting 'news' to a lot of people. How you define 'news' is perhaps not particularly important.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You're right. I'm maybe remembering the climbing mag days when things in the news section were usually of genuine significance. With the need for UKC to have as many items as possible it's down to us to decipher what we think is significant. An Instagram or Facebook post can now be of interest without an editor stepping in to tell us what is or isn't 'news'.

In reply to scot1:

It depends whether 'significant' means something which will be of interest to climbers looking at a climbing site, or something which is pushing the boundaries. If the latter, it depends how strict you want to be. I think this ascent pushes some boundaries within the context of a difficult route and the way it is attempted. If 'pushing the boundaries' is taken to mean a real contender for something harder than anything which has been done before, the site is going to be pretty short on news! 

"With the need for UKC to have as many items as possible it's down to us to decipher what we think is significant." 

Well yes, 'significant' is always going to be a matter of opinion.

In reply to scot1:

Each to their own, but the main reason I stopped reading the climbing mags is they were full of this sort of "genuine significance" which is of little relevance or interest to me.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

In my opinion this ascent pushes the boundaries of seeking attention over what is actually of significance. Who would claim a variation by traversing in to a route, even ground up? The ground up ascent will be of note in our wee world but this one is a distraction. 

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

There's still room for ground breaking stuff though?

In reply to scot1:

I think the word 'variation' was just to clarify that he didn't do the thing in a one-er. I don't think he's really trying to 'claim' anything.