UKC

I have just watched a video of Franco Cookson doing The Prow at Kyloe in the wood, but it has been removed.

Any reason why?

Thanks.

SD.

youtube.com/watch?v=LeN-7D4Se4I&

Have a read on the other channel

Varian The Librarian (E9 7a) 😂

Brilliant! Some boy.

There's an article incoming, so watch this space...

Yes, a fantastic piece of climbing. I hope he took all those mats home with him.........

That top out… Jeeezzz. 

almost scuffed his ron hills!

Shouldn’t this be called the right wall of The Prow, I thought The Prow went up the - well - steep prow? Looks pretty hard though, why doesn’t he try to finish direct rather than traversing left or is direct the next project?! Or just impossible - for now?

No i’m sure he left them there 🙄

That'll be at Kyloe used to be in the Wood then - looks a bit bleak above the crag.

He doesn't climb The Prow, he climbs the wall next to the prow. 

Andy F

Oh god, here we go again.

The prow looks like a rubbish eliminate anyway. Who cares??

Seriously what has Franco done to you??

Why? I said he climbs the wall next to the prow. Which he does. No negatives or argument about grades, just a statement of fact.

Andy F

From Franco's article it appears he climbed a couple of different moves next to The Prow, i.e. a different sequence on the same thing. If only a couple of different moves, it seems factually Incorrect to say he climbed the wall next to the route, which would suggest an independent line up much of the way.

Firstly, in combination with your well-known history of criticising and belittling Franco's ascents, I read a degree of negativity as clearly implied subtext. Judging by the voting on your post, I was far from the only one reading it that way.

Secondly, it's not a statement of fact. It's certainly trying to present itself as a statement of fact but it's actually a subjective opinion on a nuanced question with no clear black and white answers.

Personally, if I had a reputation for pissing on a particular climber's ascents and wanted to make a point about their most recent one, I'd probably at least start by congratulating them on the achievement before starting to nitpick.

Maybe this is all a plot by Franco and Andy Farnell to keep all the UKC column inches devoted to NE highballing, pushing the sport climbers out of the news. 🤣

Not that I am remotely capable of climbing these grades, you understand!

Did Franco climb the Prow?

No.

Did he climb the wall next to the Prow?

Yes.

Case closed M'lud

Andy F

I think the big issue here is that, contrary what Franco has said other ascentionists have come out saying that what Franco has done is totally different climb to what they have done. For some full on armchair criticary you can watch or see detailed photos of all 3 ascents online if you're inclined and after looking at these I can see why this has caused arguments, it's not particularly clear.  I can see why people have got cross about this as if you dont see Francos line as 'the prow' than he has committed the ultimate sin in climbing of saying he has climbed somthing he hasn't. Probably not helped by similar shenanigans at Callaly

It's a sort of interesting philosophical debate really,  as it boils down what is a climb as defined by a particular route, and what the unwritten rules and differences are between bouldering, highballing and routing and shows how idiosyncratic some aspects of climbing are. I'm sure if you got Dan Varian to write the same article he would say almost the opposite to Franco! Not that it's a bad thing to challenge preconceptions.

Either way it's an incredible effort ground up (which I think it was from the article). You never really appreciate how massive some of these highball are from videos.

Actually I disagree. The ground photos of this route show it in what i take to be real proportions whereas the shots from above with a wide angle lens exaggerate the height of it to a considerable degree and certainly add to the wow factor.

None of this detracts from a great achievement  and truly rivetting footage.

I mean highballing looks so easy in the videos you dont really appreciate it unless you've given it a go! The fall looks fine in the vid, I struggle to imagine how terrifying it would be feeling out those rattlelly monos 8 meters above the deck!

Bouldering it is not

But then again neither is it trad!

I genuinely thought you'd given up your tiresome habit of criticising Franco and trying to pick holes in his achievements. As Luke90 says, your post is clearly critical but, like Boris Johnson, if you want to keep pretending something else, you carry on. Your posts make you look petty and embittered.

Whilst Franco is undoubtedly a very cheeky fellow indeed, he's also one of the most visionary and unique characters in British climbing, and his achievements are in a class of their own. More power to his elbow, as they say in these parts.

At no point in this thread have I criticized anyone. All I've done is state facts. If people want to interpret them as criticism, that's their issue.

Andy F

Agreed, and it's all fair comment worthy of argument. But I'm not aware of you appearing on threads with arguments about other climber's routes or repeats. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may be, but you seem only to raise these issues when Franco does something. 

I raise issues when I see people making obvious errors. Whom it is, is irrelevant.

If Steve Mc, Dave Mc, or other top climbers had claimed something they hadn't done, or misreported an ascent, or offered a grade that was clearly incorrect or without proper backing (such as the James Pearson Walk of Life scenario) then I'd call that out as well.

In this case, Franco claimed he climbed the Prow. He hadn't, but a line adjacent to the Prow. All I've done is point that out. Zero criticism of the ascent, only clarification of what he did.

Andy F

Having just watched the two videos again, out of the dozen or so holds used he appears to use one different from Varian's ascent, and starts and finishes on exactly the same holds? So a small variation on line (for one hold) rather than a separate adjacent line? 

[Ooo - that 'whom' is weird. Ouch.]

It appears to me he climbs a line to the right of the prow, and well away from the original sequence used. People with greater knowledge of the route (Varian, Crowne) have said the same.

Andy F

Isn't it 'soloing'?

Also, yes I have historically criticised his grade claims and explained my reasons for doing so. Reasons I stand by.

But belittle, no. I have in fact gone on record praising his achievements.

Andy F

I thought it was one of the most boring climbing videos I've ever seen. 80 odd percent of it he was stuck on the same move. The only slightly interesting bit was the top out. Filmed from two points of view, from the top it looked quite mega, from the bottom just a big highball with a very soft landing. I reckon he would've 'happily ' taken a fall from the big pocket.  I'm sure he says there's a 5% chance of breaking an ankle if he jumped of the top. Nowt compared to the monster fall he did at  Tintwistle Knarr a few years back. Anyway,  an awesome bit of technical climbing, that us mere mortals can only fantasise about, worthy of being reported in the regular press as human fly scales blank sheer mountain face cliff 😀

OK. I mean really there are only three options. He either (a) pretty much climbed The Prow, (b) climbed a variation on The Prow, or (c) climbed a new route. Which is it? 

It wasn't done ground-up. In the article Franco talks about abbing in for a look at the holds.

Ah yes, I was confused about the dig at headpointers (whitch now I dont really understand), and took that to mean he hadn't worked it. Not really surprising as I dont really think anyone does that sort of thing ground up, but Franco never ceases to surprise!

This is absolutely ridiculous. Going from A to B using the same holds save one is a different line ? Really ? Even in hard bouldering variations are part of the game. See the Big Island : top difficulty, and yet several ways: short and tall climbers use *very* different sequences, not the same hand and foot holds to a large degree, out of the same rock feature. Even just among tall climbers differences exist. So what ?

Have you checked Bosi and MacLeod used the very same sequence on Zero ? Or that all recent top trad ascents by other climbers match exactly move for move ? Don't pretend.  

Are you suggesting the same line should bear a number of different names for each precise sequence used ? Then be prepared for a significant inflation in guidebook sizes More or less, only the lines climbed once only will have a single name, and all the others will have to be given so many names, you will have so specialize to sub-sectors to have authoritative expertise on routes identification

("authoritative", that's what's at stake, isn't it ?)  

I don't think he's having a dig at headpointers. I believe the logic he is drawing is that the fact every ascentionist so far has headpointed it (this wasn't the impression I got from Life on Hold but maybe Franco knows better) suggests they are treating it more like a trad route than a boulder problem. The extension of that argument being that whereas on a boulder problem a slight change in sequence, using one or two additional holds and using another hold with your other hand would generally be a completely different problem; whilst on a trad route it would just be considered a different sequence on the same route. It's therefore part of Franco's argument for why this is a new sequence on the Prow rather than something different. It's all a bit over-convoluted.

He has done some controversial stuff in the past but having read the article and watched the video I personally can't fault him. I think some of the insults traded on the other channel stem from a combination of (1) past antagonisms, (2) people not wanting to believe the prow is escapable, (3)  people not wanting to believe their hero's/mates as applicable climbed a slightly dodgy version of the original (if you are being strict about not adding an extra hold) in years past. Those latter two points now seem to be established facts and it has got people's backs up. For me though, they are all very impressive ascents and it's a storm in a teacup.

You get this often in bouldering, someone will do a problem the way it makes sense for them or at least the only way they could see of doing it. Then someone else comes along and climbs the same line differently, using some holds the first ascensionist maybe didn't notice or simply decided it felt harder or less natural for them to use them than what they ended up using. 

With most problems, they'll get many repeats from many different people and the beta will get refined and settle to one or a small number of sequences, sometimes it is the way the first ascensionist did it, often it isn't. 

If someone isn't happy that a certain different hold has been included then they have to ask themselves, is the original problem an eliminate which bans certain holds to gain its grade or not?

He ab’ed the line to find the holds. Not ground up.

Andy

I was curious about this too. Wil Bosi top roped it first. Ned and Dan did it “above pads and with minimal top rope inspection to clean the holds”

Info is here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2017/08/will_bosi_climbs_the_prow_8a_at_kyl...

It seems that Franco divides opinion like no other (Marmite Cookson!!). There's adoration on this thread I just don't agree with (and doesn't stack up!!)..... but at the same time Franco is undoubtedly a very good climber pushing new routes and doing hard repeats.

I think this all stems from Franco's early days on here..... but isn't it time we just treated him like the other very good climbers who grade stuff differently and sometimes disagree over eliminates? ( not a specific comment to you ian).

Looks like a different line to me but still well hard and a very good effort 👍 

Oh I agree with this sentiment entirely. Like all of us, Franco has done some dumb stuff, and like few of us, he's done some really inspiring hard, dangerous and esoteric (sorry NYM) stuff. Both deserve equal recognition, not the approach some (names not needed) take that everything Franco does is immediately wrong. 

I'm absolutely no expert on bouldering and even more so on hard bouldering - but isn't Brad Pitt the obvious example of this? It was Jason Meyers who did the FA wasn't it? I think I remember reading that he tried over a few years. Then Le Menstrel came along, heel hooked it and repeated it in a session? Something like that anyway. Has anyone repeated it without the heel hook?

I suppose Franco has used one or two different holds here, rather than the same hold in a different way, but a similar situation maybe?

Franco certainly had a lot less spotters than Bosi.......

Wish I'd ordered popcorn before reading this thread. Andy F keyboard bashing Franco is one of the great constants in the last 17 years of life for me. Honestly thought we'd seen the end... but I'll get the deckchair back out I reckon.

Anyway, flipping hilarious name Franco. Top effort. Looks both nails and worrying.

A very tall German (surname Wilenberg?) added a sit start and finished using the jump method.

 I’m don’t think it’s the same, the Brad Pitt example uses a different technique so this is akin to Pilgrim being done with knee bars. (Climbing nerds will remember that a variation on Brad Pitt was done that missed out holds and was given a different name).

No you’re wrong, he’s actually being supportive really….😂😂😂

I'm no expert on high end bouldering, but I have to question the utility of standing around with your arms in the air when the climber is several metres above your head.

It's ostensibly for 'spotting', adding a degree of safety should the climber fall, but the dirty secret of bouldering is that it's actually radiating chi energy upwards, through the spotters' palms and into the climber, pushing them up the problem. I've always thought spotters should be considered aid which, along with my awful personality, is why I climb alone most of the time. 

see it so many times in pictures. from 4 metres you must be travelling 20+ mph at a guess. hands waived in the air like you are at a gig isnt going to do much 

its great how he gets such a reaction out of people. good on him and good effort franco.

I think what Franco climbed could become the dominant variant!

Think Le Menestrel did it second go! Happy to be corrected on that though. First he tried the dyno then opted for a rather chic left toe on (not heel in those days!). 

And yea it was Thomas Willenberg who did the sit with the dyno. We bumped into him eyeing it up, he looked like a right monster... 

Poseurs.

Franco don't need that BS.

I like you.

Nine pages of posts already on the other channel in the last 5 days. Franco certainly gets people talking! 

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31739.0.html

There are lots of examples, and some even get named - but, for example, Kelly's Overhang is still Kelly's whether you go the "high way" or the "low way"...and one is easier!

So my take would be (firmly from armchair) that no one has really climber the true challenge yet, straight up the prow.  A bit like Elder Statesman needs a direct start...

I’m blushing. 

I think the aim is to try to ensure the faller lands feet first by pushing on the back / shoulders as needed...

i think the aim is to ensure the spotter survives the fall.

Many hands make lightened gravity work.

Is it correct or not though, and why (not)?  Genuine question.  Sometimes it's obvious in a sentence where the accusative is appropriate in a sentence with respect to the "who" pronoun, sometimes less so.  Andy's example, to me, falls firmly into the latter. 

Not that this necessarily impacts on the legitimacy of Franco's climbing of "The Prow" in Kyloe (was once) in the Woods.

Exactly. Even from pretty high a strategic shove can make a huge difference to the consequences of a fall. But it does become a dangerous business for both parties as height is gained. Above a certain point the spotter is better off concentrating on pad positioning rather that spotting. I.e. holding the pad ready to drag underneath the falling climber, or lift up to create greater load absorbance.

I thought the idea was you stop the climber careening off the mat into boulders or correct their landing angle a bit, rather than catch them. Plus, presumably they were there at the lower heights when it would make more difference.

Nah, the job of the spotter is to push the falling climber against the rock so they are slowed down by friction.

At least that is what we told a colleague from work climbing with us for the first time when she was 3m or so up, had a bit more to go to the first bolt, and thought it was a good time to ask whether we knew how to spot ......

CB

That's why, much to my wife's annoyance, I never get off my arse to answer the phone; not because I'm lazy but because I have a deep insecurity about whether I should say "This is him" or "This is he"

"Valentine residence, the lady of the house speaking..." would be the best greeting.

I used to answer secretary to my wife and daughters...

...how may I help you today?.... Certainly, I'll just put you through....

Sorry pedant alert, it's: How CAN I help you? Or if you must: May I help you? 🙂 

"Is that David?" 

"Who's asking?" 

It's more nuanced than you're making out. Try L'Angle Ben's on the left side of the arete vs the right side of the arete, using the same holds, and see if you think it's the same line / difficulty. Or any of a million other examples.

Let's not reverse the logic of it : I am actually bringing nuance in response to an absolutely rigid (and absurd) statement made by the poster I replied to. I qualified that total lack of nuance as 'completely ridiculous' and I stand by that.

I have also demonstrated false the statement made by that poster, that he would have called 'foul', had any other climber claimed an undeserved repeat based on the same criteria... Clearly he has not scrutinized other recent climbs, and/or he is not demonstrating good faith. 

This is very different, and clearly departs from the nuance you appear to be calling for.  *Nobody* will claim that the two sides of such a sharp arete (as l'Angle Ben, or l'angle Allain) make the same *boulder* route: no foothold in common ! So much for nuance ! (although anybody encountering a very similar arete in the course of a hard multi-pitch would have total liberty to choose any side they prefer, because in such context the name of the game is to read the terrain so as to find the easiest way (each climber his own) between protections.) Here we are just seeing some climbers raising one hand higher, to no benefit, and then backing to the same side, same set of holds, and same finish, having first reached that point from the same start, using the same holds...

So you are right, it is about nuance in the sequences, about finding better sequences for the same line, just as also illustrated with the Big Island, which different ascents have been celebrated, and not dismissed (and even less so with offensive judgment).   

Ok, let's stick to the example at hand then. For the meat of the route, the shared holds between the previous ascenionists and Franco were with the right hand (at full reach) versus with the left hand (at full reach). Even though it's mostly the same holds, the same part of them is not always being used and the body position of the climber is several feet apart, on different aspects (and angles) of the boulder.

I have no opinion either way on Franco; I'm simply observing that this is not the same line / route / bit of climbing, which seems to have been argued here on the basis that it uses (some of) the same holds.

You also seem to have been offended by my previous post - none was intended. 

Not at all. I didn't find the 'arete' comparison convincing, but I can't see how I could take any offense about that. As for the logical inversion, well this is quite common too...

[...]

Your opinion. You just are more sensitive to differences in sequences... But if the community were as sensitive overall, then many route names would have to be duplicated...But, as that was precisely done with the case at hand, what more to say ?

Maybe some thoughts about the timing for the conventions... Seeing conventions pop up *after* a repeat, esp in such a targeted way, does not look nice (and tells a bit about the community...)

A 'zone' defined retroactively ?  At least in comp bouldering, zones are set from the beginning and one may top without validating the zone ) 

Just to clarify : conventions and eliminates are as valid as any other game, as long as the rules are set clearly from start.

An extreme example : Enigma. See the prescribed sequence to tick : https://bleau.info/images/philippe.ledenmat/Enigmamthodedouverture121992cop...

(but even then, I'd be surprised very short or very tall climbers absolutely stick to the sequence, as long as they respect the elimination.)