This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
![[Drilled slots in Cornish Granite - Montage, 3 kb]](http://img.ukclimbing.com/t/149450.jpg "[Drilled slots in Cornish Granite - Montage, 3 kb]")
Last year Cornish activist Mark Edwards climbed a new route called First and Last Wall at Lands End, Cornwall.
Sheffield based climber Nic Sellers has just made a flying visit to Cornwall to repeat the route. Here he takes up the story:
"I was appalled to see a series of five blatantly drilled 1cm x 3cm x 3cm slots evenly spaced down the route..."
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
In reply to Derek O: ask him yourself - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=70642
In reply to UKC News:
so even though the summary is that they dont know who did this, the whole article points the finger... if your gunna say something, just say it.
so even though the summary is that they dont know who did this, the whole article points the finger... if your gunna say something, just say it.
In reply to jonny2vests:
Has anyone got access to the photo from climb that is mentioned? Surely a comparison between the current gear placements and Mark's original placements will easily exonerate him.
Has anyone got access to the photo from climb that is mentioned? Surely a comparison between the current gear placements and Mark's original placements will easily exonerate him.
In reply to Monk: The way I see it, it doesn't matter who did the drilling, but I hope that they won't do it again.
Sure, Mark Edwards is what you might call a 'suspect' but if he says he didn't do it, then he says he didn't do it. There is no proving it either way and there is no need to prove anything.
The way I see it there are several scenarios that are possible, and several of them would result in matching photographs, so your photo idea won't hold much water.
Possible scenarios:
1. The holes were drilled prior to Mark's ascent and he didn't notice they were artificial.
2. Mark drilled the holes for his ascent.
3. Mark climbed the route, placing cams in some natural pockets that have since been improved by an unknown climber.
4. Nic Sellers made the whole thing up to wind me up on a rainy Friday in Llanberis and the photos are of his granite kitchen work top, and are now hidden under the toaster.
Who can tell.
Sure, Mark Edwards is what you might call a 'suspect' but if he says he didn't do it, then he says he didn't do it. There is no proving it either way and there is no need to prove anything.
The way I see it there are several scenarios that are possible, and several of them would result in matching photographs, so your photo idea won't hold much water.
Possible scenarios:
1. The holes were drilled prior to Mark's ascent and he didn't notice they were artificial.
2. Mark drilled the holes for his ascent.
3. Mark climbed the route, placing cams in some natural pockets that have since been improved by an unknown climber.
4. Nic Sellers made the whole thing up to wind me up on a rainy Friday in Llanberis and the photos are of his granite kitchen work top, and are now hidden under the toaster.
Who can tell.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
> (In reply to Monk) The way I see it, it doesn't matter who did the drilling
Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
In reply to jonny2vests:
It does and it doesn't matter insofar that it would be good to name and shame the person so they know we know that we know about their indiscretion but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the damage that has been done and cannot be undone.
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
It does and it doesn't matter insofar that it would be good to name and shame the person so they know we know that we know about their indiscretion but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the damage that has been done and cannot be undone.
This is amazing, especially after all the high talk from Mr Edwards. Why is it his routes that seems to get chipped and downgraded? Someone must have it in for him hahahahahahaha
Caught again Mark
Caught again Mark
In reply to Theclimbinglab:
Are you calling him a liar? Can you support that statement... do you have proof?
> This is amazing, especially after all the high talk from Mr Edwards. Why is it his routes that seems to get chipped and downgraded? Someone must have it in for him hahahahahahaha
>
> Caught again Mark
>
> Caught again Mark
Are you calling him a liar? Can you support that statement... do you have proof?
In reply to King prawn: It would be a shame if he got blamed for manufacturing gear placements on one of his own routes just because he has a history of having done it before.
In reply to UKC News: this is pretty crappy...whoever did it should probably man up and own up....I woud like to hear from Mark's witnesses..not pointing the finger but it would be interesting especially given the trail of rock-dust seemingly leading to his door....also what are the point of those ENPs!?!?! and its a shame you never atually see how they work in he video..well not in the bits i watched anyway..good effort to Nic for flashing said route, it looks awesome, I remember it in CLIMB and thought how aestheic the line up the wall was...
In reply to dunkymonkey17:
Never used the ENP but it was a metal fitment in the rock into which you inserted a particular size nut and twisted it sideways, i guess through 90 degrees, to lock into place. You then clip the nut as usual. You'd need a lot of the same sized nut. No idea re actual strength and longevity of the ENP.
They drilled a lot of these in Spain but some of the locals complained and it never really took off.
Whilst some of this seems to point at Mark's door, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Never used the ENP but it was a metal fitment in the rock into which you inserted a particular size nut and twisted it sideways, i guess through 90 degrees, to lock into place. You then clip the nut as usual. You'd need a lot of the same sized nut. No idea re actual strength and longevity of the ENP.
They drilled a lot of these in Spain but some of the locals complained and it never really took off.
Whilst some of this seems to point at Mark's door, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
In reply to King prawn:
> (In reply to Theclimbinglab)
> [...]
>
> Are you calling him a liar? Can you support that statement... do you have proof?
No but there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq> [...]
>
> Are you calling him a liar? Can you support that statement... do you have proof?
In reply to UKC News:
Jesus christ, I'm speechless. What do people think when they do these things?
Jesus christ, I'm speechless. What do people think when they do these things?
In reply to royal:
what I find strange is that a other than someone who may have done this (assuming it's not Mark) no one has been on the route since Mark or they would surely have noticed. Or has someone been on it since Mark and seen it in pristine condition?
would be good if any locals know anything of the recent history of this route...
what I find strange is that a other than someone who may have done this (assuming it's not Mark) no one has been on the route since Mark or they would surely have noticed. Or has someone been on it since Mark and seen it in pristine condition?
would be good if any locals know anything of the recent history of this route...
In reply to UKC News:
If it was Mark Edwards he's already denied it. It's pointless to argue that point now. Somebody needs to restore the damage. Shouldn't be a hard job.
If it was Mark Edwards he's already denied it. It's pointless to argue that point now. Somebody needs to restore the damage. Shouldn't be a hard job.
In reply to jonny2vests:
I think Jack meant 'it doesn't matter who did it, we still ought to publish this article', rather than 'even if we could find out, it still wouldn't matter'.
jcm
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, not sure I agree there Jack.
I think Jack meant 'it doesn't matter who did it, we still ought to publish this article', rather than 'even if we could find out, it still wouldn't matter'.
jcm
In reply to JonC:
Apparently ENPs need wider fittings and therefore cause more damage to the rock then bolts, and they often jam if you fall on them.
Apparently ENPs need wider fittings and therefore cause more damage to the rock then bolts, and they often jam if you fall on them.
In reply to Wee Davie:#
spot of cement?
spot of cement?
In reply to James r p:
I would've thought a bit of cement faced with some granite crystals would be the ticket. Never had to do this kind of thing but probably best left to somebody with experience at it? Would be a shame to leave an obvious dodgy repair.
I would've thought a bit of cement faced with some granite crystals would be the ticket. Never had to do this kind of thing but probably best left to somebody with experience at it? Would be a shame to leave an obvious dodgy repair.
In reply to Sargey:
>and the witch hunt.
It's hardly a witch hunt.
The plume of metaphorical smoke from the fire that follows the Edwards' can be seen from space.
>and the witch hunt.
It's hardly a witch hunt.
The plume of metaphorical smoke from the fire that follows the Edwards' can be seen from space.
In reply to JonC: cool...sounds pretty wank to me!
ye i totally agree with the innocent until prven guilty but i still think it would be interesting to hear from the witnesses to prove him innocent..i cant work out if that eggburt guy is serous or not.....some serious accsations if he is!
ye i totally agree with the innocent until prven guilty but i still think it would be interesting to hear from the witnesses to prove him innocent..i cant work out if that eggburt guy is serous or not.....some serious accsations if he is!
In reply to eggburt1952:
>Of couse Mark Edwards drilled the slots on "Lands end wall" 'HELLO' .
Would you care to identify yourself before saying some of the things you have said which may or may not be true. Otherwise a complaint will be made to the mods to see about your posting being removed.
>Of couse Mark Edwards drilled the slots on "Lands end wall" 'HELLO' .
Would you care to identify yourself before saying some of the things you have said which may or may not be true. Otherwise a complaint will be made to the mods to see about your posting being removed.
1
In reply to dunkymonkey17:
didn't realise UKC was a court of law!
> (In reply to JonC) cool...sounds pretty wank to me!
>
> it would be interesting to hear from the witnesses to prove him innocent
>
> it would be interesting to hear from the witnesses to prove him innocent
didn't realise UKC was a court of law!
In reply to sutty: Why should he? He is a registered user.
In reply to eggburt1952:
As Sutty says, it would be better if you identified yourself - or removed your post, of your own volition.
On a happier note, Nige Metcalf was a mate of mates in Yorkshire. Only met him the once; he seemed a good bloke.
Mick
As Sutty says, it would be better if you identified yourself - or removed your post, of your own volition.
On a happier note, Nige Metcalf was a mate of mates in Yorkshire. Only met him the once; he seemed a good bloke.
Mick
In reply to thepeaks:
Who is making extremely serious accusations.
Mick
> (In reply to sutty) Why should he? He is a registered user.
Who is making extremely serious accusations.
Mick
In reply to sutty:
More importantly, where is M Edwards. He's been pretty active on here of late (number 15 poster last week) and has gone quiet since yesterday.
Mark said this in the UKC article:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
With seven witness, should be pretty easy for Mark to collaborate about the gear placed and the regularity of placements up the route.
Are there no photos of the first ascent to inspect?
More importantly, where is M Edwards. He's been pretty active on here of late (number 15 poster last week) and has gone quiet since yesterday.
Mark said this in the UKC article:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
With seven witness, should be pretty easy for Mark to collaborate about the gear placed and the regularity of placements up the route.
Are there no photos of the first ascent to inspect?
In reply to King prawn:
How long have you been around? This kind of stuff has been following the Edwards around since the '80s!
How long have you been around? This kind of stuff has been following the Edwards around since the '80s!
In reply to eggburt1952: haha that was pretty menacing! twas only a joke...!
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: i was going to send mr edwards an email but suprise suprise hes not acepting any emails. coward.
In reply to Mick Ward:
I'll probably see Nigel this evening, I'll ask him about this.
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> On a happier note, Nige Metcalf was a mate of mates in Yorkshire. Only met him the once; he seemed a good bloke.
>
> Mick
>
> Mick
I'll probably see Nigel this evening, I'll ask him about this.
In reply to dunkymonkey17: Considering the substantial controversy that has followed Mark for decades, there are pretty much two possibilities:
1) One or more people dislike Mark enough to chip his holds, drill gear placements, accuse him of lying about ascents
2) Mark is a toe-rag that has somehow managed to keep up this practice for decades
To accuse Egg of being the first is more serious than accusing Mark of doing it since you're not only accusing Egg of being a vandal and a liar but also a horrible malevolent shitstirrer who has been trying to destroy someone's life for the last thirty years. Not funny.
1) One or more people dislike Mark enough to chip his holds, drill gear placements, accuse him of lying about ascents
2) Mark is a toe-rag that has somehow managed to keep up this practice for decades
To accuse Egg of being the first is more serious than accusing Mark of doing it since you're not only accusing Egg of being a vandal and a liar but also a horrible malevolent shitstirrer who has been trying to destroy someone's life for the last thirty years. Not funny.
In reply to UKC News:
To be honest, does it really matter if he drilled the holes? Its basically just a bad bolting job. Who cares that much if the rock is damaged, its only a tiny bit and no one can see it. I climb in quarries all the time, where the entire face of rock has been manufactrued by drills. Just trying to even the arument out a bit.
To be honest, does it really matter if he drilled the holes? Its basically just a bad bolting job. Who cares that much if the rock is damaged, its only a tiny bit and no one can see it. I climb in quarries all the time, where the entire face of rock has been manufactrued by drills. Just trying to even the arument out a bit.
In reply to DaisyClimbing: The way I see it, somebody came and inspected the route after we´d left at the end of August and decided to ´improve´ some of the gear placements, or Mr Sellers does not have a very good eye for recognising a drilled hole. The granite itself is very crumbly, so there could be other explanations for the strange holes. Why not have a independent geological expert from outside the climbing world have a closer look at it?
To me those look like drilled holes - they are certainly not natural. So if ME didnt drill them, someone else must have done.
If they were "improvements" on natural placements, it seems curious that these natural placements were so evenly spaced up the wall?
To me those look like drilled holes - they are certainly not natural. So if ME didnt drill them, someone else must have done.
If they were "improvements" on natural placements, it seems curious that these natural placements were so evenly spaced up the wall?
In reply to pezzer:
some of the accusations now being made on this thread, by brave people from behind pseudonyms, are starting to look very likely to be libellous.
i cant imagine this thread is likely to be around much longer, but perhaps you'd like to stand behind your unpleasant accusations by putting your name to them...?
if not, perhaps you'd withdraw them before the mods pull the whole thread.
cheers
gregor
some of the accusations now being made on this thread, by brave people from behind pseudonyms, are starting to look very likely to be libellous.
i cant imagine this thread is likely to be around much longer, but perhaps you'd like to stand behind your unpleasant accusations by putting your name to them...?
if not, perhaps you'd withdraw them before the mods pull the whole thread.
cheers
gregor
In reply to DaisyClimbing: what we are going to have to see is some solid evidence from the first ascent ,somewhere someone has the pictures so get them out.
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
Possibly those three circular niches at the bottom of this hole are egg pods for the granite night lizard:
"The smallest night lizards, X. vigilis is less than 4 cm (1.6 inches) from snout to vent. It eats small insects and termites that live under logs. A close relative, the granite night lizard (X. henshawi), lives in crevices, where it moves about during the day"
E
> there could be other explanations for the strange holes. Why not have a independent geological expert from outside the climbing world have a closer look at it?
>
http://img.ukclimbing.com/i/149429.jpg>
Possibly those three circular niches at the bottom of this hole are egg pods for the granite night lizard:
"The smallest night lizards, X. vigilis is less than 4 cm (1.6 inches) from snout to vent. It eats small insects and termites that live under logs. A close relative, the granite night lizard (X. henshawi), lives in crevices, where it moves about during the day"
E
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
Is that you Mark? Or have you asked DaisyClimbing to post on your behalf? I ask because of your previous disingenuous behaviour which you admitted to - once you were exposed (no pun intended).
See: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1 - x4758437
Is that you Mark? Or have you asked DaisyClimbing to post on your behalf? I ask because of your previous disingenuous behaviour which you admitted to - once you were exposed (no pun intended).
See: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1 - x4758437
In reply to Enty:
These lizards, Enty, are they 24 or 36 volts?
> (In reply to DaisyClimbing)
> [...]
> http://img.ukclimbing.com/i/149429.jpg
>
> Possibly those three circular niches at the bottom of this hole are egg pods for the granite night lizard:
>
> "The smallest night lizards, X. vigilis is less than 4 cm (1.6 inches) from snout to vent. It eats small insects and termites that live under logs. A close relative, the granite night lizard (X. henshawi), lives in crevices, where it moves about during the day"
>
> E
> [...]
> http://img.ukclimbing.com/i/149429.jpg
>
> Possibly those three circular niches at the bottom of this hole are egg pods for the granite night lizard:
>
> "The smallest night lizards, X. vigilis is less than 4 cm (1.6 inches) from snout to vent. It eats small insects and termites that live under logs. A close relative, the granite night lizard (X. henshawi), lives in crevices, where it moves about during the day"
>
> E
These lizards, Enty, are they 24 or 36 volts?
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I reported the thread for the mods to look at 15 minutes ago so they can either delete or ask the anonymous posters to put up or shut up.
I reported the thread for the mods to look at 15 minutes ago so they can either delete or ask the anonymous posters to put up or shut up.
In reply to DaisyClimbing: "The reason I´ve not been on this forum for over a year is that this is one of the nastiest ones I´ve ever been on, and I can assure you I´ve been or am a member of quite a few. I can´t believe how easily people accuse and offend other forum users. It´s so easy to post something on a forum... and so brave, don´t you think?
Anyway, after reading all the rubbish that has been thrown at Mark here, I couldn´t resist and logged in again. "
erm... you state you havent been on here, yet you have read this thread? hmmmm
"Mark repeated the route a couple of times after, with me belaying him and I stood at the base of the crag with very sweaty hands, knowing that a fall would lead to serious injuries at the very least, if not death. "
so Mark repeated the route a couple of times after knowing that a fall would lead to serious injuires at the very least, if nor death?
to be frank sir, you are spouting utter pish which doesnt do Mark Edwards any favours
Anyway, after reading all the rubbish that has been thrown at Mark here, I couldn´t resist and logged in again. "
erm... you state you havent been on here, yet you have read this thread? hmmmm
"Mark repeated the route a couple of times after, with me belaying him and I stood at the base of the crag with very sweaty hands, knowing that a fall would lead to serious injuries at the very least, if not death. "
so Mark repeated the route a couple of times after knowing that a fall would lead to serious injuires at the very least, if nor death?
to be frank sir, you are spouting utter pish which doesnt do Mark Edwards any favours
In reply to sutty: Are you pally with the Edwards'?
In reply to Tam Stone:
Not really, as never met Mark and last time I met Rowland we had a heated discussion about a route on cloggy. That would be around 40 years ago.
I have read of their deeds and misdeeds over the years, and most of the time they have been up front with what they have done, see the Red Rose saga.
Could someone answer this. How could Mark have drilled the holes if he nhas not been in England recently?
Not really, as never met Mark and last time I met Rowland we had a heated discussion about a route on cloggy. That would be around 40 years ago.
I have read of their deeds and misdeeds over the years, and most of the time they have been up front with what they have done, see the Red Rose saga.
Could someone answer this. How could Mark have drilled the holes if he nhas not been in England recently?
In reply to sutty: Fair enough, you will have seen and heard more on it than me. Chipping is pretty pants but to chip/drill then claim a route at an E grade is pathetic.
In reply to UKC News: To pick up another point, did the local Spanish agree to the placing of the ENP's before they put them up? If not, it's pretty poor.
In reply to Erik B: This Daisy character sounds a lot like Finnian Mchaille or whatever Si'O's belayer was called....
In reply to sutty: Could someone answer this. How could Mark have drilled the holes if he nhas not been in England recently?
He couldnt - so either he did it at the time of the first ascent or someone else did.
He couldnt - so either he did it at the time of the first ascent or someone else did.
In reply to Chris Harris:
Thank you. And ask him about Deke and Doc and Shagger and Boggie. I'm sure he'll smile and shake his head at the follies of youth.
Mick
> I'll probably see Nigel this evening, I'll ask him about this.
Thank you. And ask him about Deke and Doc and Shagger and Boggie. I'm sure he'll smile and shake his head at the follies of youth.
Mick
In reply to Mick Ward: He mentions Shagger from time to time. The others are names I'm not familiar with.
In reply to Chris Harris: Try Dott instead of Boggie?
In reply to eggburt1952:
The late Paul Williams was also a witness to the first ascent of Resurection and I heard him many times tell a similar story to the one related above. His version culminated in someone bellowing up from the screes below "You'll never get away with it Rowland!".
There were many tales about Rowland and cheating tactics circulating around North Wales in the late 1970's; a Fi-Fi hook hidden under his shirt, attached to his harness, for hanging on gear was a common accusation. Later, as a fellow student at Bangor Normal College, I met Rowland and climbed with him on quite a number of ocassions. I'd heard the stories and I watched carefully! However, I never saw him cheat once, even in poor conditions. He was a very steady, methodical and safe climber.
> I have personally witnessed their antics and engineering on the crags over a period of nearly 40 years ever since I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a when his actual "first" ascent was A1 all the way, not just on the hard bit, he did the route with my friend Nigel Metcalf and I was there in person on the day to see the "great man" in action.......
The late Paul Williams was also a witness to the first ascent of Resurection and I heard him many times tell a similar story to the one related above. His version culminated in someone bellowing up from the screes below "You'll never get away with it Rowland!".
There were many tales about Rowland and cheating tactics circulating around North Wales in the late 1970's; a Fi-Fi hook hidden under his shirt, attached to his harness, for hanging on gear was a common accusation. Later, as a fellow student at Bangor Normal College, I met Rowland and climbed with him on quite a number of ocassions. I'd heard the stories and I watched carefully! However, I never saw him cheat once, even in poor conditions. He was a very steady, methodical and safe climber.
In reply to steve456:
bloody hell mate it was a joke not a serious accusation!! more a comment on how feircely he is blaming the edwards' inegrity....whether he is correct or not it was a joke, hence the smile afterwards.
> (In reply to dunkymonkey17)
> To accuse Egg of being the first is more serious than accusing Mark of doing it since you're not only accusing Egg of being a vandal and a liar but also a horrible malevolent shitstirrer who has been trying to destroy someone's life for the last thirty years. Not funny.
bloody hell mate it was a joke not a serious accusation!! more a comment on how feircely he is blaming the edwards' inegrity....whether he is correct or not it was a joke, hence the smile afterwards.
In reply to all:
Please can people who make significant accusations on this thread include their name on their post, not just their user name.
I have emailed Newt above to ask him to do this, I email Egg earlier but received no reply so that has been removed.
Thanks
Alan
Please can people who make significant accusations on this thread include their name on their post, not just their user name.
I have emailed Newt above to ask him to do this, I email Egg earlier but received no reply so that has been removed.
Thanks
Alan
In reply to sutty:
If all the anonymous posts were removed there wouldn't be much left.
For instance, would anyone looking at your profile know who "sutty" really is?
If all the anonymous posts were removed there wouldn't be much left.
For instance, would anyone looking at your profile know who "sutty" really is?
As it happens, I chopped the bolts on the abortion fancifully named 'Red Rose'. The defiling of that wall at Sennen was the culmination of a period where cheating, chipping and drilling had become commonplace on the cliffs of West Penwith. Drilled holes with pegs smashed into them, cleaning of faces on an industrial scale, the theft of routes from true first ascentionists and the blatant chipping of holds on otherwise blank faces; all featured in the range of cheating that was taking place in what had become somewhat of a backwater for the preceding few years.
The wall at Sennen had a number of manufactured holds; above large quartz crystals the rock had been hollowed out to make a perfect, flat finger jugs. These were without a shadow of a doubt chipped. Some time later Mike Raine and I, together with a number of friends, returned a pile of pegs and bolts to Roland that the Edwards' had left rotting in the Cornish crags.
Who knows who actually perpetrated these shameful acts. How odd that the same thing has happened again, and how very odd that it involves the same characters as last time. Some people never learn.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of ENPs - what a pile of toss. It's still a drilled hole !! They are not very strong, and the whole idea has simply poked-off a load of the local climbers who, what a surprise, don't boast racks consisting entirely of Rock 3s, or whatever it is that fits these flights of nonsense.
It would seem that some habits are hard to kick.
Andy Newton, Llanberis
The wall at Sennen had a number of manufactured holds; above large quartz crystals the rock had been hollowed out to make a perfect, flat finger jugs. These were without a shadow of a doubt chipped. Some time later Mike Raine and I, together with a number of friends, returned a pile of pegs and bolts to Roland that the Edwards' had left rotting in the Cornish crags.
Who knows who actually perpetrated these shameful acts. How odd that the same thing has happened again, and how very odd that it involves the same characters as last time. Some people never learn.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of ENPs - what a pile of toss. It's still a drilled hole !! They are not very strong, and the whole idea has simply poked-off a load of the local climbers who, what a surprise, don't boast racks consisting entirely of Rock 3s, or whatever it is that fits these flights of nonsense.
It would seem that some habits are hard to kick.
Andy Newton, Llanberis
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Alan,
the wildest story/claims comes from 'Daisyclimbing' you can't favour some anonymous posts over others
Mike Raine
Alan,
the wildest story/claims comes from 'Daisyclimbing' you can't favour some anonymous posts over others
Mike Raine
In reply to Alan_2468:
Yes, if they did a search, a long history of posting, unlike some who seem to have registered purely to stir the mire.
A few postings from my history, on one forum;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?forum=9&dates=1&na...
Organised this for several years, among other meets;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=364322
Enough detail?
Yes, if they did a search, a long history of posting, unlike some who seem to have registered purely to stir the mire.
A few postings from my history, on one forum;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?forum=9&dates=1&na...
Organised this for several years, among other meets;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=364322
Enough detail?
In reply to sutty:
the fact is that the calling of people to reveal themselves from one side of the argument and removing posts that don't comply leaves a completely one-sided view of things.
With all due respect, this wouldn't be the first time.
the fact is that the calling of people to reveal themselves from one side of the argument and removing posts that don't comply leaves a completely one-sided view of things.
With all due respect, this wouldn't be the first time.
In reply to Paul B:
If you make accusations or are critical the emerging trend on Internet forums is to sign off using your real name if your registered user name is a pseudonym, nickname or abbreviation.
Thanks to Andy Newton for doing so. Egg person should do so as well, and daisy climber.
Mick ryan
If you make accusations or are critical the emerging trend on Internet forums is to sign off using your real name if your registered user name is a pseudonym, nickname or abbreviation.
Thanks to Andy Newton for doing so. Egg person should do so as well, and daisy climber.
Mick ryan
In reply to Paul B: I think Alan has got it about right - hopefully this thread can focus on the Lands end drilling.
In reply to Mike Raine:
He too has been asked to put his name to his post.
Alan
> the wildest story/claims comes from 'Daisyclimbing' you can't favour some anonymous posts over others
He too has been asked to put his name to his post.
Alan
In reply to Paul B:
Considering I am currently being bombarded by angry emails from people on both sides of this discussion, it makes your suggestion sound somewhat ridiculous.
Alan
> the fact is that the calling of people to reveal themselves from one side of the argument and removing posts that don't comply leaves a completely one-sided view of things.
> With all due respect, this wouldn't be the first time.
> With all due respect, this wouldn't be the first time.
Considering I am currently being bombarded by angry emails from people on both sides of this discussion, it makes your suggestion sound somewhat ridiculous.
Alan
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
Hi Mark.
Why do you post under this name as well as your own?
Hi Mark.
Why do you post under this name as well as your own?
In reply to murdster:
There's an accusation right there. Identify yourself!
Mark
> (In reply to DaisyClimbing)
>
>
> Hi Mark.
> Why do you post under this name as well as your own?
>
>
> Hi Mark.
> Why do you post under this name as well as your own?
There's an accusation right there. Identify yourself!
Mark
In reply to bobert: Mark who??
I'm not sure why anyone feel the need to drill anything.
Just because they gear hasn't been invented to protected these climbs today, doesn't mean you have to drill them. Why does he need to drill that climb in spain? Stick a TR on it if he isn't good enough to using natural gear. And if there isn't any natural gear then its a hard route. Just because he can't climb it doesn't mean someone else can't.
I can't see the difference between that climb and say a VS climbing drilling a VS climb that has no gear. Is there a difference?
Just because they gear hasn't been invented to protected these climbs today, doesn't mean you have to drill them. Why does he need to drill that climb in spain? Stick a TR on it if he isn't good enough to using natural gear. And if there isn't any natural gear then its a hard route. Just because he can't climb it doesn't mean someone else can't.
I can't see the difference between that climb and say a VS climbing drilling a VS climb that has no gear. Is there a difference?
In reply to Alan_2468:
Well said. In Sutty's case, it's more a nickname than a nom de plume, anyway. The bottom line is, we all know who he is (or, if anyone doesn't know, they can easily find out.)
As Mick Ryan posted above, people should use their real names if their posts are accusatory. Emerging netiquette or not, this is simple good manners/old-fashioned decency.
God knows what Alan's backoffice view of all this is: a hornet's nest of angry emails, pro and con??
There have been unsavoury kangaroo courts on here before. It would not be right for this to descend into another one.
Mick
> (In reply to sutty)
>
> I concede the point graciously - you are not anonymous.
>
> I concede the point graciously - you are not anonymous.
Well said. In Sutty's case, it's more a nickname than a nom de plume, anyway. The bottom line is, we all know who he is (or, if anyone doesn't know, they can easily find out.)
As Mick Ryan posted above, people should use their real names if their posts are accusatory. Emerging netiquette or not, this is simple good manners/old-fashioned decency.
God knows what Alan's backoffice view of all this is: a hornet's nest of angry emails, pro and con??
There have been unsavoury kangaroo courts on here before. It would not be right for this to descend into another one.
Mick
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
>> the wildest story/claims comes from 'Daisyclimbing' you can't favour some anonymous posts over others
"Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
>> the wildest story/claims comes from 'Daisyclimbing' you can't favour some anonymous posts over others
> He too has been asked to put his name to his post.
"Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
In reply to Coel Hellier:
"Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
Which makes this thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
sadder and funnier at the same time!
"Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
Which makes this thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
sadder and funnier at the same time!
In reply to Erik B:
I think it can be quite brave, actually, especially if you use your real identity. I've had some shit resulting from that in the past. Maybe that's why you aren't using yours? The real point, though, is that there can be a sort of equivalent of the scientific peer review process on this site. If someone is accused of something, or is suspected of doing something, then the floor is open for them to come in and explain it away, if they care to do so. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, as I have no knowledge of the people involved or their personal credentials outside of their climbing grades, which are generally impressive. I just thought I would defend the ethical stance of this forum a little, because I've generally found it to be pretty fair. I know it can hurt a bit when you're on the wrong end of it, but that's not the same thing as it being unjust or excessive in any way.
Steve.
> (In reply to DaisyClimbing) "The reason I´ve not been on this forum for over a year is that this is one of the nastiest ones I´ve ever been on, and I can assure you I´ve been or am a member of quite a few. I can´t believe how easily people accuse and offend other forum users. It´s so easy to post something on a forum... and so brave, don´t you think?
I think it can be quite brave, actually, especially if you use your real identity. I've had some shit resulting from that in the past. Maybe that's why you aren't using yours? The real point, though, is that there can be a sort of equivalent of the scientific peer review process on this site. If someone is accused of something, or is suspected of doing something, then the floor is open for them to come in and explain it away, if they care to do so. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, as I have no knowledge of the people involved or their personal credentials outside of their climbing grades, which are generally impressive. I just thought I would defend the ethical stance of this forum a little, because I've generally found it to be pretty fair. I know it can hurt a bit when you're on the wrong end of it, but that's not the same thing as it being unjust or excessive in any way.
Steve.
In reply to Ackbar:
"...did the local Spanish agree to the placing of the ENP's before they put them up?"
In Oct, 1999 (I have a copy somewhere), Jose Miguel Garcia Fraile, Spanish mountain guide and member of the Spanish Mountaineeing and Climbing Federation wrote in a British magazine: "...it upsets us that 'once again' they have introduced a new and maybe unsafe system (ENP) and put it into practice widely without a word to any locals, Spanish climbers, mountain club or Federation.
We talked to the Edwards about the need to get consensus from climbing communities - before proceeding with their ENP (removeable drilled protection). The rigid, unconstructive and negetive attitude has resulted in us making this strong - public protest. The love and respect that they say spurs them on...does not correspond with reality. I think their routes are messy and unsafe. This is the right time (1999) after 15 years to denounce what we think is a blatent lack of respect shown by these climbers.
"...did the local Spanish agree to the placing of the ENP's before they put them up?"
In Oct, 1999 (I have a copy somewhere), Jose Miguel Garcia Fraile, Spanish mountain guide and member of the Spanish Mountaineeing and Climbing Federation wrote in a British magazine: "...it upsets us that 'once again' they have introduced a new and maybe unsafe system (ENP) and put it into practice widely without a word to any locals, Spanish climbers, mountain club or Federation.
We talked to the Edwards about the need to get consensus from climbing communities - before proceeding with their ENP (removeable drilled protection). The rigid, unconstructive and negetive attitude has resulted in us making this strong - public protest. The love and respect that they say spurs them on...does not correspond with reality. I think their routes are messy and unsafe. This is the right time (1999) after 15 years to denounce what we think is a blatent lack of respect shown by these climbers.
In reply to murdster:
I get your point, but the dates of those threads are quite far apart. Maybe you should allow for some other possibilities there. They might not even have known each other when the first of those threads was posted.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> "Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
>
>
> Which makes this thread:
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
>
> sadder and funnier at the same time!
>
> "Daisyclimbing" describes herself as Mark's girlfriend "Andrea" on the thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107
>
>
> Which makes this thread:
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
>
> sadder and funnier at the same time!
I get your point, but the dates of those threads are quite far apart. Maybe you should allow for some other possibilities there. They might not even have known each other when the first of those threads was posted.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Exactly, and as far as I'm aware, I'm a 'she' and not a 'he' as presumed above. Some of the reactions prove my point about the forum exactly and I already regret having posted here. Although the cross examinations are quite funny, I must admit.
If anybody would like to check if I really exist, then I suggest coming over to Spain and see for yourself.
Exactly, and as far as I'm aware, I'm a 'she' and not a 'he' as presumed above. Some of the reactions prove my point about the forum exactly and I already regret having posted here. Although the cross examinations are quite funny, I must admit.
If anybody would like to check if I really exist, then I suggest coming over to Spain and see for yourself.
In reply to DaisyClimbing: Hi - its unfortunate that some posts have become less than polite but as someone who climbed the route in question in Aug 09 with Mark you are uniquely placed to shed some light on it - are you saying that there were no improved gear placements then - only very shallow slots for cams?
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
Or you could at least just tell people your name in your posts and be open about your identity, as the other posters in this thread have been asked to do.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
>
> If anybody would like to check if I really exist, then I suggest coming over to Spain and see for yourself.
>
>
> If anybody would like to check if I really exist, then I suggest coming over to Spain and see for yourself.
Or you could at least just tell people your name in your posts and be open about your identity, as the other posters in this thread have been asked to do.
In reply to Steve Parker:
Point taken, but I don't believe it for a minute. Do you?
"Andrea, let's feed my ego by starting a discussion about my great new routes..."
Hilarious.
Point taken, but I don't believe it for a minute. Do you?
"Andrea, let's feed my ego by starting a discussion about my great new routes..."
Hilarious.
In reply to Steve Parker:
That's very generous of you Steve! But if you read a little further down the thread Mark openly admits that it was a complete set up...
'Yep! Been rumbled... Got my arse kicked to send out my new routes by Daisy'
So it seems that they knew each other by by the time it was posted, and that Daisy is quite happy to be part of the set up.
BTW...where did the original Daisy post go in this thread?
That's very generous of you Steve! But if you read a little further down the thread Mark openly admits that it was a complete set up...
'Yep! Been rumbled... Got my arse kicked to send out my new routes by Daisy'
So it seems that they knew each other by by the time it was posted, and that Daisy is quite happy to be part of the set up.
BTW...where did the original Daisy post go in this thread?
In reply to Dave Todd:
I've now read it all, and I see you're right. That's not really very cool is it.
Where did Daisy's post go? I guess it got deleted. I copied it from someone who replied to it above.
> (In reply to Steve Parker)
>
> That's very generous of you Steve! But if you read a little further down the thread Mark openly admits that it was a complete set up...
>
> That's very generous of you Steve! But if you read a little further down the thread Mark openly admits that it was a complete set up...
I've now read it all, and I see you're right. That's not really very cool is it.
Where did Daisy's post go? I guess it got deleted. I copied it from someone who replied to it above.
In reply to UKC News:
Don't UK citizens with shady morals quite often leave the UK and move out to Spain? Petty criminals, fraudsters and the like. I guess there's now a nice community out there. It must be nice to be among friends.
There's a practice on eBay called 'shill bidding', whereby you set up multiple accounts and/or get help from friends in order to drive the price of your items up. I can't help but get a sense that this forum is the victim of 'shill posting'. If so, that really is pretty pathetic.
Mark, if ENP didn't catch on with the locals (although you didn't consult first), maybe you (or someone else) thought ECP would go down better? Then again, who has six of the same size C3s on their rack? Stupid idea - that will never catch on. Wait - I've got it - a nailed on way of protecting those E9 ascents, without damaging the rock (not that it matters):
http://gadgetblips.dailyradar.com/video/spiderman-vacuum-gloves-part-2-bang...
Ben
Don't UK citizens with shady morals quite often leave the UK and move out to Spain? Petty criminals, fraudsters and the like. I guess there's now a nice community out there. It must be nice to be among friends.
There's a practice on eBay called 'shill bidding', whereby you set up multiple accounts and/or get help from friends in order to drive the price of your items up. I can't help but get a sense that this forum is the victim of 'shill posting'. If so, that really is pretty pathetic.
Mark, if ENP didn't catch on with the locals (although you didn't consult first), maybe you (or someone else) thought ECP would go down better? Then again, who has six of the same size C3s on their rack? Stupid idea - that will never catch on. Wait - I've got it - a nailed on way of protecting those E9 ascents, without damaging the rock (not that it matters):
http://gadgetblips.dailyradar.com/video/spiderman-vacuum-gloves-part-2-bang...
Ben
In reply to Ben Darvill:
Man, that is so much bollox (yes, I know you know it is. I'm just saying). It would make sense if the toprope wasn't there. With the toprope it is just idiot theatre. It's just annoying when he freaks out when the pads slip. Like what's going to happen? Oh my God I am going to fall 3 inches...
Man, that is so much bollox (yes, I know you know it is. I'm just saying). It would make sense if the toprope wasn't there. With the toprope it is just idiot theatre. It's just annoying when he freaks out when the pads slip. Like what's going to happen? Oh my God I am going to fall 3 inches...
In reply to Steve Parker: And Mark's FB page says he is in a relationship with someone called Andrea. The plot thickens.
In reply to Chris Shorter:
>(Chris Shorter) :
Well, I spoke to Nigel at some length about this tonight, and he was quite clear that:
There were 3 aid points used by Rowland on the lead of Resurrection, not 4 as printed in Extreme Rock.
When following the route, he used 2 of these points.
The route was done on a mid week evening, finishing in light drizzle, with very few people about. He is adamant that Paul Williams was not there, and would be delighted to know the identity of anyone else who claims to be.
> (eggburt1952):
> [> I have personally witnessed their antics and engineering on the crags over a period of nearly 40 years ever since I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a when his actual "first" ascent was A1 all the way, not just on the hard bit, he did the route with my friend Nigel Metcalf and I was there in person on the day to see the "great man" in action.......]
>(Chris Shorter) :
> The late Paul Williams was also a witness to the first ascent of Resurection and I heard him many times tell a similar story to the one related above. His version culminated in someone bellowing up from the screes below "You'll never get away with it Rowland!".
Well, I spoke to Nigel at some length about this tonight, and he was quite clear that:
There were 3 aid points used by Rowland on the lead of Resurrection, not 4 as printed in Extreme Rock.
When following the route, he used 2 of these points.
The route was done on a mid week evening, finishing in light drizzle, with very few people about. He is adamant that Paul Williams was not there, and would be delighted to know the identity of anyone else who claims to be.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
not really, its fairly evident that they are a couple from http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107&v=1#x4998526
its wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that Mr Edwards has posted under his partner's username but as far a I am concerned, it really doesn't matter who did it, lets just hope it doesn't happen again. If Mr Edwards would like to provide evidence that he didn't do it then allow him to do so in his own time and lets give him the benefit of the doubt that's permeated throughout this thread. Innocent until proven otherwise and lack of evidence is not evidence of any wrong doing.
In other words, stop spouting spurious accusations unless you have the evidence to back up your claims.
Alan, why should people who put forward accusations put their names on a post? if they have an accusation, they should be able to give that accusation without fear of repercussion - by not providing their name. you should be asking for evidence, not names.
> (In reply to Steve Parker) And Mark's FB page says he is in a relationship with someone called Andrea. The plot thickens.
not really, its fairly evident that they are a couple from http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=339107&v=1#x4998526
its wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that Mr Edwards has posted under his partner's username but as far a I am concerned, it really doesn't matter who did it, lets just hope it doesn't happen again. If Mr Edwards would like to provide evidence that he didn't do it then allow him to do so in his own time and lets give him the benefit of the doubt that's permeated throughout this thread. Innocent until proven otherwise and lack of evidence is not evidence of any wrong doing.
In other words, stop spouting spurious accusations unless you have the evidence to back up your claims.
Alan, why should people who put forward accusations put their names on a post? if they have an accusation, they should be able to give that accusation without fear of repercussion - by not providing their name. you should be asking for evidence, not names.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Maybe because the anonymity could allow anyone to claim anything about anyone without any fear of repercussions whatsoever. That doesn't work in real life, and I doubt many of us want it to. It's one of the basic 'checks and balances' that accusers are obliged to give their identity when making a legal accusation. It's not a foolproof caveat, but it probably helps to deter some of the wildly groundless accusations that you might get otherwise. That's the general opinion of the legal profession in most countries anyway, as I understand it, and it's not based on nothing.
> Alan, why should people who put forward accusations put their names on a post? if they have an accusation, they should be able to give that accusation without fear of repercussion - by not providing their name. you should be asking for evidence, not names.
Maybe because the anonymity could allow anyone to claim anything about anyone without any fear of repercussions whatsoever. That doesn't work in real life, and I doubt many of us want it to. It's one of the basic 'checks and balances' that accusers are obliged to give their identity when making a legal accusation. It's not a foolproof caveat, but it probably helps to deter some of the wildly groundless accusations that you might get otherwise. That's the general opinion of the legal profession in most countries anyway, as I understand it, and it's not based on nothing.
In reply to Steve Parker:
it doesn't matter if you know their name, people should be able to make accusations anonymously but should provide evidence to back up their claim. the caveat is Evidence, not a name
> (In reply to highclimber)
>
> [...]
It's one of the basic 'checks and balances' that accusers are obliged to give their identity when making a legal accusation. >
> [...]
it doesn't matter if you know their name, people should be able to make accusations anonymously but should provide evidence to back up their claim. the caveat is Evidence, not a name
I'm sorry to hear Nigels memory like mine is fading a bit, but i watched the whole ascent whilst bouldering on the cromlech boulders with another guy who i assume was paul williams (i didn't get to know paul well untill 10 years later). My memory of the day is that it was a nice sunny mid week afternoon with no drizzle involved. Nigel who i knew as being one of the llanberis crowd of the times was someone i used to chat with regularly in those days and when they came down i asked him how was that? to which he replied A1, this confirmed both mine and the other guys(paul) visual impression of what had taken place multiple aid points and not much free climbing certainly lots of hanging aided "rests". being an awe struck youth in those days i was shocked that such a famous climber like Rowland would use these tactics and then claim a free ascent!
egg (yes it's my name still is and was at the time of this tale)
sennen
ps nigel if your'e still climbing and ever get down here look me up
egg (yes it's my name still is and was at the time of this tale)
sennen
ps nigel if your'e still climbing and ever get down here look me up
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I feel really strongly about this and the way this thread has progressed is a good example of exactly why people who make strong statements on threads like this should put their full name on them.
Yes, evidence is important, but the discussion about the posts by Daisyclimber and Eggburt have been almost exclusively about who they are, not what they are talking about. In these cases their identity is crucial. One appears to have a connection with Mark, this is significant information.
What are these repercussion you are fearing? This isn't the mafia. People should treat these discussions as if they are face-to-face with everyone.
If you believe something strongly then put your name to it. "This is me, this is what I think". If you don't then instantly it undermines your argument. Why won't you say who you are? There must be some reason and that reason may be important, it may also be completely irrelevant but until you have an identity the reader won't know.
So that is why our policy is that you must include your full name if you want to make the sort of statements DaisyClimber and Eggburt posted on this thread. Stand up for what you think like Nic Sellars and Andy Newton have done, and to an extent Mark Edwards by contributing to our news piece. Don't hide away behind a pseudonym and some non-existant threat of repercussions.
Alan James, Sheffield
> it doesn't matter if you know their name, people should be able to make accusations anonymously but should provide evidence to back up their claim. the caveat is Evidence, not a name
I feel really strongly about this and the way this thread has progressed is a good example of exactly why people who make strong statements on threads like this should put their full name on them.
Yes, evidence is important, but the discussion about the posts by Daisyclimber and Eggburt have been almost exclusively about who they are, not what they are talking about. In these cases their identity is crucial. One appears to have a connection with Mark, this is significant information.
What are these repercussion you are fearing? This isn't the mafia. People should treat these discussions as if they are face-to-face with everyone.
If you believe something strongly then put your name to it. "This is me, this is what I think". If you don't then instantly it undermines your argument. Why won't you say who you are? There must be some reason and that reason may be important, it may also be completely irrelevant but until you have an identity the reader won't know.
So that is why our policy is that you must include your full name if you want to make the sort of statements DaisyClimber and Eggburt posted on this thread. Stand up for what you think like Nic Sellars and Andy Newton have done, and to an extent Mark Edwards by contributing to our news piece. Don't hide away behind a pseudonym and some non-existant threat of repercussions.
Alan James, Sheffield
egg = graham everitt are the 14,00 any wiser?
In reply to eggburt1952:
I don't think Paul would have been very well known in North Wales in 1975. It wasn't until a couple of years later that he moved to Wales and started working for Clog.
> I'm sorry to hear Nigels memory like mine is fading a bit, but i watched the whole ascent whilst bouldering on the cromlech boulders with another guy who i assume was paul williams (i didn't get to know paul well untill 10 years later).
I don't think Paul would have been very well known in North Wales in 1975. It wasn't until a couple of years later that he moved to Wales and started working for Clog.
In reply to Everybody speculating about the identity of daisyclimbing:
You guys should work on your Dutch…Check this http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2 out for the identity of Mark's belayer during the first ascent (apparently this is daisyclimbing).
Regards,
Merlijn Meens, Maastricht, NL
You guys should work on your Dutch…Check this http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2 out for the identity of Mark's belayer during the first ascent (apparently this is daisyclimbing).
Regards,
Merlijn Meens, Maastricht, NL
In reply to merlijnmeens:
So we just need to high resolution image to see what gear was in place......
So we just need to high resolution image to see what gear was in place......
In reply to eggburt1952:
No, but it still matters - so thank you. Yesterday I was pretty sure who you were but wasn't going to speculate on here. I've got vague memories of doing something on Cloggy with Roger (your brother?)
Re Resurrection (and my memory may be fading too!) I don't think it was originally given E4 6a. I don't remember E grades (or 6a generally)coming in until a few years later. My memory is that it was described with several points of aid, which Pete (Livesey) knew all about when he freed it a little later.
While 35 year old memories can be capricious for all of us, obviously Nigel and yourself are entirely reputable witnesses.
Mick
> egg = graham everitt are the 14,00 any wiser?
No, but it still matters - so thank you. Yesterday I was pretty sure who you were but wasn't going to speculate on here. I've got vague memories of doing something on Cloggy with Roger (your brother?)
Re Resurrection (and my memory may be fading too!) I don't think it was originally given E4 6a. I don't remember E grades (or 6a generally)coming in until a few years later. My memory is that it was described with several points of aid, which Pete (Livesey) knew all about when he freed it a little later.
While 35 year old memories can be capricious for all of us, obviously Nigel and yourself are entirely reputable witnesses.
Mick
In reply to eggburt1952:
They should be, if they know their climbing history! First british ascent of Half Dome's Zenith, if I recall, in 1979 or 1980 - probably the hardest wall done by a brit at the time.
> egg = graham everitt are the 14,00 any wiser?
They should be, if they know their climbing history! First british ascent of Half Dome's Zenith, if I recall, in 1979 or 1980 - probably the hardest wall done by a brit at the time.
In reply to jon:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=111990
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> Absolutely brilliant photo of you and Tom Leppert in the UKC gallery, Egg!
>
> Absolutely brilliant photo of you and Tom Leppert in the UKC gallery, Egg!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=111990
In reply to Alan James - UKC: Interestingly enough Alan, the BBC have reported the WoW developers have backed down over a decision to enforce users to use their real name to prevent 'flame wars'....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8806623.stm
Cx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8806623.stm
Cx
In reply to Clears:
i dont think thats of too much relevance to ukc. the climbing community here is not huge, and it seems to be pretty interconnected, as opposed to WoW which is worldwide, with less people knowing each other outside cyberspace...?
i think it is fair enough that if you are making accusations that call into question the intergrity of someone that may be well known, and may even have a professional reputation which could be harmed by them, then you should be prepared to stand behind that accusation with your real name.
that allows people reading the accusation to make a more informed judgement about the likely truth of it, and any other agenda you might have (not suggesting that there is another agenda in this case, i dont know any of the people involved)
it also should give people pause for thought before saying anything that they wouldnt be prepared to say to the person's face, or posting things that might be legally dubious. which would be no bad thing to my mind
cheers
gregor
i dont think thats of too much relevance to ukc. the climbing community here is not huge, and it seems to be pretty interconnected, as opposed to WoW which is worldwide, with less people knowing each other outside cyberspace...?
i think it is fair enough that if you are making accusations that call into question the intergrity of someone that may be well known, and may even have a professional reputation which could be harmed by them, then you should be prepared to stand behind that accusation with your real name.
that allows people reading the accusation to make a more informed judgement about the likely truth of it, and any other agenda you might have (not suggesting that there is another agenda in this case, i dont know any of the people involved)
it also should give people pause for thought before saying anything that they wouldnt be prepared to say to the person's face, or posting things that might be legally dubious. which would be no bad thing to my mind
cheers
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I personally agree wholeheartedly. Like yourself I post under a psydonym (sp?) but I am known by many from here and don't try to hide behind the username for any anoynimity. Nor do I make accusations about others on here (unless maybe to tell them their cake wasn't very nice or somesuch
I just thought there was an interesting synergie between what UKC is trying to prevent here on this thread/forums and the WoW approach to the same problem.
Cx
I just thought there was an interesting synergie between what UKC is trying to prevent here on this thread/forums and the WoW approach to the same problem.
Cx
In reply to UKC News: is this really what climbing is about? argueing on the internet?
In reply to davedyer:
It's not the heart and soul, but yes, it is part of it.
> is this really what climbing is about? argueing on the internet?
It's not the heart and soul, but yes, it is part of it.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I think this is exactly right. In circumstances where people might have genuine reasons to be afraid of some violent repercussions or something, then fair enough, keep their identities hidden, but apart from that definitely not. The most you are likely to face on an internet forum is being shown to be wrong and being embarrassed about it. I'd like to see anyone use that as grounds for anonymity in court.
> What are these repercussion you are fearing? This isn't the mafia.
I think this is exactly right. In circumstances where people might have genuine reasons to be afraid of some violent repercussions or something, then fair enough, keep their identities hidden, but apart from that definitely not. The most you are likely to face on an internet forum is being shown to be wrong and being embarrassed about it. I'd like to see anyone use that as grounds for anonymity in court.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
>by not providing their name. you should be asking for evidence, not names.
Names are part of evidence. If people claim to be eyewitnesses then their identity is part of their evidence.
jcm
>by not providing their name. you should be asking for evidence, not names.
Names are part of evidence. If people claim to be eyewitnesses then their identity is part of their evidence.
jcm
In reply to UKC News:
When a route of mine was chipped I was raging and I still blog about it http://www.colinmoody.com/Site_2/Blog/Entries/2010/6/11_Chipping%2C_Arrocha...
I wrote a letter which was printed in Climber.
I wrote to Tom Prentice the guide book writer.
I wrote to Andy Nisbet and a note appeared in the SMC journal.
My route was not on a 'stunning wall' or a 'last great problem'.
Mark's reaction was "Very sad to hear about this".
Why is he not ranting?
When a route of mine was chipped I was raging and I still blog about it http://www.colinmoody.com/Site_2/Blog/Entries/2010/6/11_Chipping%2C_Arrocha...
I wrote a letter which was printed in Climber.
I wrote to Tom Prentice the guide book writer.
I wrote to Andy Nisbet and a note appeared in the SMC journal.
My route was not on a 'stunning wall' or a 'last great problem'.
Mark's reaction was "Very sad to hear about this".
Why is he not ranting?
In reply to Chris Shorter:
Interesting you mention Rowland as I too have a story;
Some years ago I climbed on the old Man of Stoer in the company of my pals from the Creagh Dhu. On our way back up the hillside we spotted a line that did not appear in the guidebook. As it was obviously an excellent looking piece of rock we were rather excited and took the trouble to check all the old SMC journals and climbing mags for any record of a route in this area - there was none. Two weeks later we returned to climb A Clean Old Man E1 5b. In due course we reported the ascent to the SMC.
Imagine our surprise then, when the new guide came out and we discovered that the line was called Diamond Face and had been climbed by Rowland some ten years previously. We were puzzled as to why we couldn't find any record of this when we were researching new routes claimed on the crag. And then it dawned on us...
This must have been in Rowland's modest phase when he simply couldn't be bothered to mention to anyone that he had just completed an excellent three star route on one of Scotland's most iconic pieces of rock.
It seems he was been particularly keen to keep this climb a secret from others as he appeared to have subsequently abseiled the route to put back the loose holds he must have dislodged on his way up. Of course we cleaned these rather obvious features off again ten years later and foolishly thought it was a first ascent. Silly us!
Interesting you mention Rowland as I too have a story;
Some years ago I climbed on the old Man of Stoer in the company of my pals from the Creagh Dhu. On our way back up the hillside we spotted a line that did not appear in the guidebook. As it was obviously an excellent looking piece of rock we were rather excited and took the trouble to check all the old SMC journals and climbing mags for any record of a route in this area - there was none. Two weeks later we returned to climb A Clean Old Man E1 5b. In due course we reported the ascent to the SMC.
Imagine our surprise then, when the new guide came out and we discovered that the line was called Diamond Face and had been climbed by Rowland some ten years previously. We were puzzled as to why we couldn't find any record of this when we were researching new routes claimed on the crag. And then it dawned on us...
This must have been in Rowland's modest phase when he simply couldn't be bothered to mention to anyone that he had just completed an excellent three star route on one of Scotland's most iconic pieces of rock.
It seems he was been particularly keen to keep this climb a secret from others as he appeared to have subsequently abseiled the route to put back the loose holds he must have dislodged on his way up. Of course we cleaned these rather obvious features off again ten years later and foolishly thought it was a first ascent. Silly us!
this is very typical are we going to get the first ascentionists right in the new cornwall guide?
egg
egg
In reply to colin struthers:
If you are suggesting that you were actually the first ascentionists and therefore it hadn't been climbed prior to you ascent, you should probably know that it has since been claimed to have been climbed back in 1982 as 'Ros Dearg'.
http://www.smc.org.uk/Downloads/New%20Climbs%202008.pdf
If you are suggesting that you were actually the first ascentionists and therefore it hadn't been climbed prior to you ascent, you should probably know that it has since been claimed to have been climbed back in 1982 as 'Ros Dearg'.
http://www.smc.org.uk/Downloads/New%20Climbs%202008.pdf
In reply to UKC News:
This ant news at all good ole Dennis has got in to the groove years ago ...
"The British Mountaineering Council (or the Association of Democratic and Liberal Minded Climbers) Supports Bolting."
http://www.mountain-clients.org.uk/2008/06/bmc-bolts/
This ant news at all good ole Dennis has got in to the groove years ago ...
"The British Mountaineering Council (or the Association of Democratic and Liberal Minded Climbers) Supports Bolting."
http://www.mountain-clients.org.uk/2008/06/bmc-bolts/
In reply to Ian McNeill:
Any idea who that guy is and what his story is - quite a sprayfest he has going on there !
Any idea who that guy is and what his story is - quite a sprayfest he has going on there !
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's Dennis Morrod, but I can't remember the back story. He's certainly not shy of giving an opinion...
It's Dennis Morrod, but I can't remember the back story. He's certainly not shy of giving an opinion...
In reply to UKC News:
The bottom line is this. Alan needs to get in touch with the magazine that ran the story and get hold of the original high res photo of the first ascent. That should clear up the argument. A photo from anybody else would be unreliable as it could have been doctored in one way or another.
Even then the photographer should be contacted to ensure that this was in fact the first ascent and not a subsequent ascent made without the drilled kit.
Mark's silence and Andrea's participation does not look good here really. The fact that the Edwards family seem to have been holding a smoking gun on ethics throughout recent decades also looks very bad to the point where it is unsurprising that guilt is assumed over innocence. Having read some of Mark's posts here he certainly doesn't seem to be a modest man which appears synonomous with the shady claims.
Having run the article and initiated the stir in a very leading article I think the obligation is upon UKC to sort out some solid evidence (i.e. an original 1st ascent photo and accompanying statement from photgrapher/unbiased witness). This is currently very damaging for Mark who already has the ENP garbage to his name. If it is not true then it deserves to be put right.
The bottom line is this. Alan needs to get in touch with the magazine that ran the story and get hold of the original high res photo of the first ascent. That should clear up the argument. A photo from anybody else would be unreliable as it could have been doctored in one way or another.
Even then the photographer should be contacted to ensure that this was in fact the first ascent and not a subsequent ascent made without the drilled kit.
Mark's silence and Andrea's participation does not look good here really. The fact that the Edwards family seem to have been holding a smoking gun on ethics throughout recent decades also looks very bad to the point where it is unsurprising that guilt is assumed over innocence. Having read some of Mark's posts here he certainly doesn't seem to be a modest man which appears synonomous with the shady claims.
Having run the article and initiated the stir in a very leading article I think the obligation is upon UKC to sort out some solid evidence (i.e. an original 1st ascent photo and accompanying statement from photgrapher/unbiased witness). This is currently very damaging for Mark who already has the ENP garbage to his name. If it is not true then it deserves to be put right.
In reply to Monk:
Now, he is completely barking... a HUGE chip on his shoulder.
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> It's Dennis Morrod, but I can't remember the back story. He's certainly not shy of giving an opinion...
>
> It's Dennis Morrod, but I can't remember the back story. He's certainly not shy of giving an opinion...
Now, he is completely barking... a HUGE chip on his shoulder.
In reply to Will Hunt: You don't look like you find chips delicious, Will.
In reply to UKC News:The big question remains; who and where are the seven witnesses? Roger Mitchell (Local Activist)
In reply to Ian McNeill:
Blimey...is Dennis still ranting on and on and on and on and on and.....
He must be so cross that the BMC/Guides Association haven't sent out their clandestine hit squad to silence him...the final proof that his is the only true word..no really..it is.
Blimey...is Dennis still ranting on and on and on and on and on and.....
He must be so cross that the BMC/Guides Association haven't sent out their clandestine hit squad to silence him...the final proof that his is the only true word..no really..it is.
In reply to UKC News: For your information, Mark recentlyadded the following routes to the database.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160202 (E10)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160162 (E3)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161 (E8)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160163 (E3)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160168 (E3)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160202 (E10)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160162 (E3)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161 (E8)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160163 (E3)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160168 (E3)
In reply to UKC News:
So from what people have said in this thread, is Mark Edwards basically a bit of a weird bloke? I can't imagine why someone who has come under fire over so many things would keep doing them. I was chatting to some friends about this as well and they were mentioning lots of massive overgradings in Spain, sorry I'm just spinning the rumour mill there but it is the word that's out there. If he just doesn't care what people think then whats the sense in cheating, whos he fooling?
So from what people have said in this thread, is Mark Edwards basically a bit of a weird bloke? I can't imagine why someone who has come under fire over so many things would keep doing them. I was chatting to some friends about this as well and they were mentioning lots of massive overgradings in Spain, sorry I'm just spinning the rumour mill there but it is the word that's out there. If he just doesn't care what people think then whats the sense in cheating, whos he fooling?
In reply to Will Hunt:
Hi Will.
If this http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2 is the photo from climb, then a high res version isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if the intention is to see how bit the slots were on the FA as there just won't be enough detail.
If there's a shot taken from a less oblique angle on a tele', then you might be able to make out the slots in adequate detail but I reckon if Mark's your mystery chipper, he's unlikely to have taken revealing photos, so any image is unlikely to yield much evidence either way.
Cheers,
Tom (not accusing anyone of anything) Last
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> The bottom line is this. Alan needs to get in touch with the magazine that ran the story and get hold of the original high res photo of the first ascent. That should clear up the argument. A photo from anybody else would be unreliable as it could have been doctored in one way or another.
>
>
> The bottom line is this. Alan needs to get in touch with the magazine that ran the story and get hold of the original high res photo of the first ascent. That should clear up the argument. A photo from anybody else would be unreliable as it could have been doctored in one way or another.
>
Hi Will.
If this http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2 is the photo from climb, then a high res version isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if the intention is to see how bit the slots were on the FA as there just won't be enough detail.
If there's a shot taken from a less oblique angle on a tele', then you might be able to make out the slots in adequate detail but I reckon if Mark's your mystery chipper, he's unlikely to have taken revealing photos, so any image is unlikely to yield much evidence either way.
Cheers,
Tom (not accusing anyone of anything) Last
In reply to Southern Man: It's possible a high res version of that might show if the pro was at the same points as it was for Nic Seller's ascent.
In reply to Papillon:
Hi Papi.
I might have read it incorrectly, but I thought Mark admits to having used cams n some slots, but just cams that were very poor. I got the impression these were in the same place as where Nic Sellers had found, but that he found them to be much better than expected i.e manufactured - rather than shallow as Mark had stated?
Was there actually more gear overall?
Hi Papi.
I might have read it incorrectly, but I thought Mark admits to having used cams n some slots, but just cams that were very poor. I got the impression these were in the same place as where Nic Sellers had found, but that he found them to be much better than expected i.e manufactured - rather than shallow as Mark had stated?
Was there actually more gear overall?
In reply to Southern Man: Hello, like you I don't want to accuse anybody of anything..... from reading Nic Sellers contribution (notably paragraph 2), I think Nic & others would have an opinion if the placements turned out to be the same, point for point.
In reply to eggburt1952:
Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
> I'm sorry to hear Nigels memory like mine is fading a bit, but i watched the whole ascent whilst bouldering on the cromlech boulders with another guy who i assume was paul williams (i didn't get to know paul well untill 10 years later)...
> ...this confirmed both mine and the other guys(paul) visual impression of what had taken place multiple aid points and not much free climbing certainly lots of hanging aided "rests".
Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
He kept that E10 quiet; dont remember much coverage at the time considering it was the hardest grade in the country then.
He kept that E10 quiet; dont remember much coverage at the time considering it was the hardest grade in the country then.
In reply to jonny2vests:
I'm sure you could tell - even from the road - if someone was climbing or sitting on gear/aiding. The body shape would give it away.
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
I'm sure you could tell - even from the road - if someone was climbing or sitting on gear/aiding. The body shape would give it away.
In reply to Mick Ward:
Hi Mick
I've just spent 45 mins up in loft looking at old copies of Crags and Mountain magazine.
You are absolutely correct E Grades were first proposed in and edition of Crags 5. That Edition does not have a date on but Crags 1 came out in 1976 the year after Rowland Edwards climbed Resurrection. Some of the Lakes lads had been using them prior to then as reported in Crags 5.
E Grades only really began to take off after an article was published in Mountain 54 (March/April Edition 1977) which gave a pretty comprehensive list of lakeland E Grades and some grades in the rest of the Country.
Mountain 44 News section state Rowland Edwards with Nigel Metcalfe made a new Route Resurection XS,5C. It goes on to say "Edwards reports that the route gives excellent climbing of considerable technical interest; it is adequately protected, but utilizes one piton (in situ) for aid at half height and another (removed)to protect the final section of the climb. Two slings were used for "resting during the ascent" The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced"
By my reckoning if that is Rowland Edwards account of his ascent of Resurrection he was pretty open about is manner of ascent.
I may have misunderstood the intended meaning of the references to Resurrection but it seamed to suggest that Rowland Edwards concealed the manner of his ascent and claimed a grade of E46a. It looks to me that he was pretty open about the style of his ascent and he actually claimed a grade of XS5C.
Kipper
(Philip J Smith) Proper name added in case anyone wants to accuse me of hiding under a psuedonym
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> Re Resurrection (and my memory may be fading too!) I don't think it was originally given E4 6a. I don't remember E grades (or 6a generally)coming in until a few years later. My memory is that it was described with several points of aid, which Pete (Livesey) knew all about when he freed it a little later.
>
> While 35 year old memories can be capricious for all of us, obviously Nigel and yourself are entirely reputable witnesses.
>
> Mick
>
> While 35 year old memories can be capricious for all of us, obviously Nigel and yourself are entirely reputable witnesses.
>
> Mick
Hi Mick
I've just spent 45 mins up in loft looking at old copies of Crags and Mountain magazine.
You are absolutely correct E Grades were first proposed in and edition of Crags 5. That Edition does not have a date on but Crags 1 came out in 1976 the year after Rowland Edwards climbed Resurrection. Some of the Lakes lads had been using them prior to then as reported in Crags 5.
E Grades only really began to take off after an article was published in Mountain 54 (March/April Edition 1977) which gave a pretty comprehensive list of lakeland E Grades and some grades in the rest of the Country.
Mountain 44 News section state Rowland Edwards with Nigel Metcalfe made a new Route Resurection XS,5C. It goes on to say "Edwards reports that the route gives excellent climbing of considerable technical interest; it is adequately protected, but utilizes one piton (in situ) for aid at half height and another (removed)to protect the final section of the climb. Two slings were used for "resting during the ascent" The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced"
By my reckoning if that is Rowland Edwards account of his ascent of Resurrection he was pretty open about is manner of ascent.
I may have misunderstood the intended meaning of the references to Resurrection but it seamed to suggest that Rowland Edwards concealed the manner of his ascent and claimed a grade of E46a. It looks to me that he was pretty open about the style of his ascent and he actually claimed a grade of XS5C.
Kipper
(Philip J Smith) Proper name added in case anyone wants to accuse me of hiding under a psuedonym
In reply to Derek O:
The difference is the quarries were not drilled in order to engineer an easier climb. Someone has done this because they're not man enough to admit they don't have the skill to conquer the climb in its original form, and in doing so have ruined an especially challenging climb for everyone who would hope to try.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Who cares that much if the rock is damaged, its only a tiny bit and no one can see it. I climb in quarries all the time, where the entire face of rock has been manufactrued by drills. Just trying to even the arument out a bit.
>
> Who cares that much if the rock is damaged, its only a tiny bit and no one can see it. I climb in quarries all the time, where the entire face of rock has been manufactrued by drills. Just trying to even the arument out a bit.
The difference is the quarries were not drilled in order to engineer an easier climb. Someone has done this because they're not man enough to admit they don't have the skill to conquer the climb in its original form, and in doing so have ruined an especially challenging climb for everyone who would hope to try.
In reply to UKC News:
This news item is tragic.
It is tragic because it reports, in graphic detail, vandalism of a Cornish cliff which would beggar belief, had we not seen it all before.
It is tragic because the denials and bluster merely confirm that the protagonists still don’t credit the climbing populous with even the most basic intelligence. The attempts at detective work on this thread are a complete waste of time. Just try adding two and two together. Four? Right.
It is tragic because genuine eye witness accounts, which merely backup what everyone who has been around for a while know to be the truth, are questioned. Questioned either by naïve believers who place far too much faith in comments which simply can’t be relied on at face value, or by over-zealous forum moderators introducing new rules which raise the bar from the normal “registered users only” to something rather higher, (perhaps inadvertently) consigning valuable comment to the recycle bin in the process.
What is most tragic is that the vandals are still destroying our cliffs, just as they have been for the last 20 or 30 years. The fact they think that anyone will fall for their lies and denials shows just how deluded they are.
Next time you return to Cornwall, can I respectfully suggest you leave your drills and chisels behind?
Neil
This news item is tragic.
It is tragic because it reports, in graphic detail, vandalism of a Cornish cliff which would beggar belief, had we not seen it all before.
It is tragic because the denials and bluster merely confirm that the protagonists still don’t credit the climbing populous with even the most basic intelligence. The attempts at detective work on this thread are a complete waste of time. Just try adding two and two together. Four? Right.
It is tragic because genuine eye witness accounts, which merely backup what everyone who has been around for a while know to be the truth, are questioned. Questioned either by naïve believers who place far too much faith in comments which simply can’t be relied on at face value, or by over-zealous forum moderators introducing new rules which raise the bar from the normal “registered users only” to something rather higher, (perhaps inadvertently) consigning valuable comment to the recycle bin in the process.
What is most tragic is that the vandals are still destroying our cliffs, just as they have been for the last 20 or 30 years. The fact they think that anyone will fall for their lies and denials shows just how deluded they are.
Next time you return to Cornwall, can I respectfully suggest you leave your drills and chisels behind?
Neil
In reply to jon:
Hmmm, ok. It just seems like a long way. I've tries to discern details from the road before - half the time you can't even tell if the crags wet or not without Binos.
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> I'm sure you could tell - even from the road - if someone was climbing or sitting on gear/aiding. The body shape would give it away.
> [...]
>
> I'm sure you could tell - even from the road - if someone was climbing or sitting on gear/aiding. The body shape would give it away.
Hmmm, ok. It just seems like a long way. I've tries to discern details from the road before - half the time you can't even tell if the crags wet or not without Binos.
In reply to jonny2vests: Get some glasses.
In reply to Neil Foster:
My reasons for doing this are stated above. Of the three significant comments removed, two have reposted with full names.
For discussions like this, the bar needs to be raised.
Alan
> ... or by over-zealous forum moderators introducing new rules which raise the bar from the normal “registered users only” to something rather higher, (perhaps inadvertently) consigning valuable comment to the recycle bin in the process.
My reasons for doing this are stated above. Of the three significant comments removed, two have reposted with full names.
For discussions like this, the bar needs to be raised.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
The first post by eggburt, not about Resurrection but about a climb that he had attempted but hadn't been able to get past a holdless roof, has not been reposted. Do you still have the post (given that eggburt is now identified)? I agree with Neil Foster that removing such things is a pity (though I agree with you that they should not be anonymous).
Second, wouldn't it be better if such posts are removed to just replace the words with "this post was deleted by a moderator" but leave the post and poster's name as a place marker? That is fairly common for moderation, and allows people to make more sense of a thread (try reading this one without knowing what disappeared), and if censorship is to be done it is better done openly.
> Of the three significant comments removed, two have reposted with full names.
The first post by eggburt, not about Resurrection but about a climb that he had attempted but hadn't been able to get past a holdless roof, has not been reposted. Do you still have the post (given that eggburt is now identified)? I agree with Neil Foster that removing such things is a pity (though I agree with you that they should not be anonymous).
Second, wouldn't it be better if such posts are removed to just replace the words with "this post was deleted by a moderator" but leave the post and poster's name as a place marker? That is fairly common for moderation, and allows people to make more sense of a thread (try reading this one without knowing what disappeared), and if censorship is to be done it is better done openly.
In reply to jonny2vests: I was on the Grochan a few years back (Plexus buttress so even further away) and was able to work out who was on Resurrection and my eye-sight isn't brilliant. I think I would have have known if the guy was aiding.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
You mean Dinas Mot I presume?
> I was on the Grochan a few years back (Plexus buttress so even further away)
You mean Dinas Mot I presume?
In reply to Coel Hellier: Aye!! My eyesight would be amazing to see someone on Resurrection from the Grochan!!
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Lol.
Fair enough, I give in.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Aye!! My eyesight would be amazing to see someone on Resurrection from the Grochan!!
Lol.
Fair enough, I give in.
In reply to Kipper-Phil Smith:
Hi Phil,
Hope all's well with you. Would be great to meet up at the Stoney reunion!
Thank you for doing the research on Resurrection. While 'Roland, you'll never get away with this!' (or some such) makes a great 1970s pub story, it looks as though his description was honest.
And (for our younger readers) the 1970s was a time when, if you were seen to fail on a new route, it was gone the next day. Unsurprisingly,in the blink of an eye, folk might get some tension, sit on gear, 'enhance' a hold, etc, etc. I'm not saying this was right (it wasn't) but there was no UKC to answer to!
So it seems, as you say, that Roland was honest about Resurrection. And, for that, I am glad.
Mick
Hi Phil,
Hope all's well with you. Would be great to meet up at the Stoney reunion!
Thank you for doing the research on Resurrection. While 'Roland, you'll never get away with this!' (or some such) makes a great 1970s pub story, it looks as though his description was honest.
And (for our younger readers) the 1970s was a time when, if you were seen to fail on a new route, it was gone the next day. Unsurprisingly,in the blink of an eye, folk might get some tension, sit on gear, 'enhance' a hold, etc, etc. I'm not saying this was right (it wasn't) but there was no UKC to answer to!
So it seems, as you say, that Roland was honest about Resurrection. And, for that, I am glad.
Mick
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I have invited Egg to repost his initial post. In fact I tried to contact him straight away to avoid having to remove it in the first place. I really don't want to repost though without Egg's permission.
The second post from DaisyClimber is a good example of why names are crucial. The discussion following it was the detective game finding out who it came from, which revealed it to be a close acquaintance of Mark's. I knew this straight away since it came from the same IP address and urged her to state who she was. I haven't had a reply though. Had she posted her name then it would have been much clearer from the beginning - still a bit of detective work to find out who it was, but it would have given the post so much more credibility, "yes I am Mark's friend who held his rope on the ascent, and no I don't think he chipped the route". You can't argue with that.
Our forums are a ground-up build so all these features need adding in which costs money. We don't get much call for the post removal markers but it does happen about once a month or so. I can see that it is something we need to address, since removing posts from threads like this can leave a bit of a mess. We'll have a think and see what we can come up with.
It is worth keeping in mind that, contrary to the impression some people get, we actually only remove about 3 or 4 threads each day and 75% of those are spam. We only remove about 3 or 4 posts a day on average but those often come in bunches when threads have gone off on a barney. Delicate moderating like this thread is extremely rare.
Alan
> The first post by eggburt, not about Resurrection but about a climb that he had attempted but hadn't been able to get past a holdless roof, has not been reposted. Do you still have the post (given that eggburt is now identified)? I agree with Neil Foster that removing such things is a pity (though I agree with you that they should not be anonymous).
I have invited Egg to repost his initial post. In fact I tried to contact him straight away to avoid having to remove it in the first place. I really don't want to repost though without Egg's permission.
The second post from DaisyClimber is a good example of why names are crucial. The discussion following it was the detective game finding out who it came from, which revealed it to be a close acquaintance of Mark's. I knew this straight away since it came from the same IP address and urged her to state who she was. I haven't had a reply though. Had she posted her name then it would have been much clearer from the beginning - still a bit of detective work to find out who it was, but it would have given the post so much more credibility, "yes I am Mark's friend who held his rope on the ascent, and no I don't think he chipped the route". You can't argue with that.
> Second, wouldn't it be better if such posts are removed to just replace the words with "this post was deleted by a moderator" but leave the post and poster's name as a place marker? That is fairly common for moderation, and allows people to make more sense of a thread (try reading this one without knowing what disappeared), and if censorship is to be done it is better done openly.
Our forums are a ground-up build so all these features need adding in which costs money. We don't get much call for the post removal markers but it does happen about once a month or so. I can see that it is something we need to address, since removing posts from threads like this can leave a bit of a mess. We'll have a think and see what we can come up with.
It is worth keeping in mind that, contrary to the impression some people get, we actually only remove about 3 or 4 threads each day and 75% of those are spam. We only remove about 3 or 4 posts a day on average but those often come in bunches when threads have gone off on a barney. Delicate moderating like this thread is extremely rare.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Yes, it is a bit of a mess without those posts, and why on earth should Egg have to re-post?
After all, he did play by the rules which you made up as you went along.
Yes, it is a bit of a mess without those posts, and why on earth should Egg have to re-post?
After all, he did play by the rules which you made up as you went along.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I'd say you've got it about right and thse people demanding the right to slag someone off should bear in mind that open criticism (even moderated)like this was pretty rare when we only had printed media.
> Delicate moderating like this thread is extremely rare
I'd say you've got it about right and thse people demanding the right to slag someone off should bear in mind that open criticism (even moderated)like this was pretty rare when we only had printed media.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Well I certainly sympathise. Trying to moderate a thread like this must be a thankless task (tho' lets not forget, the thread is responding to a UKC news item).
However, I did feel that Graham Everitt's original post was credible and presented evidence of events he had witnessed personally. You may not have realised that Egg was Graham Everitt, though many readers (like me) did, but I don't think Graham was attempting to hide behind a pseudonym at all. He gave plenty of pointers as to his identity within that post.
And yet despite him posting his real name, his post, which was significant and important to this debate, remains deleted.
(I've just read your later post, where you say you have tried to contact him to ask him to re-post, so thanks for that. I hope he will re-post in due course).
Cheers
Neil
> (In reply to Neil Foster)
> [...]
>
> My reasons for doing this are stated above. Of the three significant comments removed, two have reposted with full names.
>
> For discussions like this, the bar needs to be raised.
>
> Alan
> [...]
>
> My reasons for doing this are stated above. Of the three significant comments removed, two have reposted with full names.
>
> For discussions like this, the bar needs to be raised.
>
> Alan
Well I certainly sympathise. Trying to moderate a thread like this must be a thankless task (tho' lets not forget, the thread is responding to a UKC news item).
However, I did feel that Graham Everitt's original post was credible and presented evidence of events he had witnessed personally. You may not have realised that Egg was Graham Everitt, though many readers (like me) did, but I don't think Graham was attempting to hide behind a pseudonym at all. He gave plenty of pointers as to his identity within that post.
And yet despite him posting his real name, his post, which was significant and important to this debate, remains deleted.
(I've just read your later post, where you say you have tried to contact him to ask him to re-post, so thanks for that. I hope he will re-post in due course).
Cheers
Neil
In reply to Neil Foster:
Neil, weren't you running one of the mags for a time? If so, would you have let eggs posting get into the letters page if you had no idea who he was, I wouldn't.
Anyway, seems most of the mysteries, apart from the enlargement of the slots are solved now so can leave things.
Neil, weren't you running one of the mags for a time? If so, would you have let eggs posting get into the letters page if you had no idea who he was, I wouldn't.
Anyway, seems most of the mysteries, apart from the enlargement of the slots are solved now so can leave things.
In reply to Kipper-Phil Smith:
>I may have misunderstood the intended meaning of the references to Resurrection but it seamed to suggest that Rowland Edwards concealed the manner of his ascent and claimed a grade of E46a. It looks to me that he was pretty open about the style of his ascent and he actually claimed a grade of XS5C.
I didn't think the poster was making any point about the grade, merely that a lot more aid was used than was declared. Mind you, my impression is that aid points in some way didn't really count during the 70's unless you really used them a lot, so perhaps this was common enough.
jcm
>I may have misunderstood the intended meaning of the references to Resurrection but it seamed to suggest that Rowland Edwards concealed the manner of his ascent and claimed a grade of E46a. It looks to me that he was pretty open about the style of his ascent and he actually claimed a grade of XS5C.
I didn't think the poster was making any point about the grade, merely that a lot more aid was used than was declared. Mind you, my impression is that aid points in some way didn't really count during the 70's unless you really used them a lot, so perhaps this was common enough.
jcm
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>The first post by eggburt, not about Resurrection but about a climb that he had attempted but hadn't been able to get past a holdless roof, has not been reposted.
I think two of his are missing, actually. And is it me, or is DaisyClimber's first post as well, which really does seem a bit daft, since everyone knows who she is too. I don't understand why Alan feels able to remove posts without permission but not, having done so, to replace them.
jcm
>The first post by eggburt, not about Resurrection but about a climb that he had attempted but hadn't been able to get past a holdless roof, has not been reposted.
I think two of his are missing, actually. And is it me, or is DaisyClimber's first post as well, which really does seem a bit daft, since everyone knows who she is too. I don't understand why Alan feels able to remove posts without permission but not, having done so, to replace them.
jcm
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
No it wasn't; there were loads of E10s by 2007 including ME's own Rewind and, perhaps most famously, Equilibrium.
I must say I'll be interested to see what grade Academia receives when Dave M makes his next trip south (as if), but it's a long time since I was at the crag.
jcm
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
>
> He kept that E10 quiet; dont remember much coverage at the time considering it was the hardest grade in the country then.
>
> He kept that E10 quiet; dont remember much coverage at the time considering it was the hardest grade in the country then.
No it wasn't; there were loads of E10s by 2007 including ME's own Rewind and, perhaps most famously, Equilibrium.
I must say I'll be interested to see what grade Academia receives when Dave M makes his next trip south (as if), but it's a long time since I was at the crag.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That would be because the technical ability to replace posts doesn't exist on this forum. It would need reposting and would appear down the list, out of context. It would also appear under the profile of whoever reposted it - so me if the other person hadn't done so, which in this case neither of them have.
Alan
> I think two of his are missing, actually. And is it me, or is DaisyClimber's first post as well, which really does seem a bit daft, since everyone knows who she is too. I don't understand why Alan feels able to remove posts without permission but not, having done so, to replace them.
That would be because the technical ability to replace posts doesn't exist on this forum. It would need reposting and would appear down the list, out of context. It would also appear under the profile of whoever reposted it - so me if the other person hadn't done so, which in this case neither of them have.
Alan
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
"I must say I'll be interested to see what grade Academia receives when Dave M makes his next trip south (as if), but it's a long time since I was at the crag."
If it's anything like last time you'll have to wait for him to injure himself again before he has a go at it.
If he keeps it up, in years to come i reckon there will be Dave Macleod jokes like the Chuck Norris jokes that do the rounds.
"I must say I'll be interested to see what grade Academia receives when Dave M makes his next trip south (as if), but it's a long time since I was at the crag."
If it's anything like last time you'll have to wait for him to injure himself again before he has a go at it.
If he keeps it up, in years to come i reckon there will be Dave Macleod jokes like the Chuck Norris jokes that do the rounds.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Dave Macleod doesn't worry about runouts, he bites cam placements in the rock.
> If he keeps it up, in years to come i reckon there will be Dave Macleod jokes like the Chuck Norris jokes that do the rounds.
Dave Macleod doesn't worry about runouts, he bites cam placements in the rock.
In reply to UKC News:
Dave Macleod doesn't use protection, the mountain does.
Dave Macleod doesn't use protection, the mountain does.
In reply to jonny2vests:
i looked upwards in the direction of cenotaph corner but a little to the left! egg
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Egg, I'd be interested to know how you could tell he was aiding from the Cromlech boulders.
i looked upwards in the direction of cenotaph corner but a little to the left! egg
> Thank you for doing the research on Resurrection. While 'Roland, you'll never get away with this!' (or some such) makes a great 1970s pub story, it looks as though his description was honest.
>
> And (for our younger readers) the 1970s was a time when, if you were seen to fail on a new route, it was gone the next day. Unsurprisingly,in the blink of an eye, folk might get some tension, sit on gear, 'enhance' a hold, etc, etc. I'm not saying this was right (it wasn't) but there was no UKC to answer to!
>
> So it seems, as you say, that Roland was honest about Resurrection. And, for that, I am glad.
>
> Mick
Sorry Mick, but from what I saw on the day Rowland wasn't honest about Resurection there were multiple aid points and rests not just two/four the ascent took at least 3hrs to lead and it was obvious what was going on but who knows maybe i only witnessed a practice session? I don't remember anyone yelling up from the screes so that was possibly a "Paulism" to embellish the pub version, but i can confirm that there was another person bouldering at the same time (who i assume was Paul)and we did have a conversation that went something along the lines of "what the f... is he doing up there!" and Nigel Metcalfe when asked how was that replied "A1" . It is interesting that untill this thread I didn't know that Paul was the other guy or had a similar story, as we never disscussed this issue after i got to know him personally. as for the cool diamonds affair witness's apart from Dickie Swinden and i were;- Dave cook , Pete mills (Aussie),Rene croft, Norma Green(usa) and a mate of cookies called stephan If proof is required 4 of the above are pictured in the edwards guide on the photo of Dickie leading the route. egg>
> And (for our younger readers) the 1970s was a time when, if you were seen to fail on a new route, it was gone the next day. Unsurprisingly,in the blink of an eye, folk might get some tension, sit on gear, 'enhance' a hold, etc, etc. I'm not saying this was right (it wasn't) but there was no UKC to answer to!
>
> So it seems, as you say, that Roland was honest about Resurrection. And, for that, I am glad.
>
> Mick
In reply to royal: Dave Macleod doesn't climb up routes, he pushes cliffs downwards.
In reply to eggburt1952:
Hi Graham,as you say, it may have been a practice session/previous attempt. However this doesn't align with the Mountain report: 'The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced.' And Wilson (rightly) was a stickler for detail.
Obviously you saw what you saw. Nigel must know whether this was the FA or not.
Although this may seem like nitpicking, yesterday there was a post decrying a FA by Roland on the Old Man of Stoer on the basis of loose holds. And then it transpired that others had previously done the FA anyway! Stuff like this, and the ENP slagging-off (an innovation which they were open about) make one despair of them ever getting a fair hearing.
However the Cool Diamonds affair seems unequivocal.
God, one way or the other, this is a distressing business!
Mick
Hi Graham,as you say, it may have been a practice session/previous attempt. However this doesn't align with the Mountain report: 'The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced.' And Wilson (rightly) was a stickler for detail.
Obviously you saw what you saw. Nigel must know whether this was the FA or not.
Although this may seem like nitpicking, yesterday there was a post decrying a FA by Roland on the Old Man of Stoer on the basis of loose holds. And then it transpired that others had previously done the FA anyway! Stuff like this, and the ENP slagging-off (an innovation which they were open about) make one despair of them ever getting a fair hearing.
However the Cool Diamonds affair seems unequivocal.
God, one way or the other, this is a distressing business!
Mick
Here is Egg's (Graham Everitt) original post:
Of couse Mark Edwards drilled the slots on "Lands end wall" 'HELLO' . Nearly all of their hard routes down here are the product of cheating and I have personally witnessed their antics and engineering on the crags over a period of nearly 40 years ever since I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a when his actual "first" ascent was A1 all the way, not just on the hard bit, he did the route with my friend Nigel Metcalf and I was there in person on the day to see the "great man" in action - to when they created holds on their new route "Cool diamonds" at bosistow zawn(Supposedly done two weeks previous and described by them as E3 6a) which was actually first climbed by Dickie Swinden and myself with one point of aid at the roof, where on the day no holds existed. We discussed our finding of insufficient grips at the roof to Rowland and Mark in the Queens arms that night to which Rowland replied that he had'nt found any difficulty at the roof and said that we must have missed something. Next day whilst climbing at zawn Kellys we were surprised to see a party on Cool Diamonds especially as the route hadn't even been written up at the time, binocular inspection revealed Rowland being belayed by Mark whilst aid climbing with foot slings the entire route up to the roof where he engaged in an extensive episode of engineering to create holds. Today the route is given E5/6 6b, in its original state it was probably E7/8 6c or 7a if done free. It is despicable of these two to keep blaming local climbers for their acts of shameless vandalism in persuit of fame and fortune, everyone who is involved with the local climbing scene down here knows exactly what they have been up to for years and has a story to tell, the Edwards's can't claim that it is just a few bitter individuals as the cast of characters in the audience has changed over the years but the show remains the same. Hope this sheds some light on the path.
Egg
Of couse Mark Edwards drilled the slots on "Lands end wall" 'HELLO' . Nearly all of their hard routes down here are the product of cheating and I have personally witnessed their antics and engineering on the crags over a period of nearly 40 years ever since I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a when his actual "first" ascent was A1 all the way, not just on the hard bit, he did the route with my friend Nigel Metcalf and I was there in person on the day to see the "great man" in action - to when they created holds on their new route "Cool diamonds" at bosistow zawn(Supposedly done two weeks previous and described by them as E3 6a) which was actually first climbed by Dickie Swinden and myself with one point of aid at the roof, where on the day no holds existed. We discussed our finding of insufficient grips at the roof to Rowland and Mark in the Queens arms that night to which Rowland replied that he had'nt found any difficulty at the roof and said that we must have missed something. Next day whilst climbing at zawn Kellys we were surprised to see a party on Cool Diamonds especially as the route hadn't even been written up at the time, binocular inspection revealed Rowland being belayed by Mark whilst aid climbing with foot slings the entire route up to the roof where he engaged in an extensive episode of engineering to create holds. Today the route is given E5/6 6b, in its original state it was probably E7/8 6c or 7a if done free. It is despicable of these two to keep blaming local climbers for their acts of shameless vandalism in persuit of fame and fortune, everyone who is involved with the local climbing scene down here knows exactly what they have been up to for years and has a story to tell, the Edwards's can't claim that it is just a few bitter individuals as the cast of characters in the audience has changed over the years but the show remains the same. Hope this sheds some light on the path.
Egg
In reply to Mick Ward: Some of the antics described above (e.g. getting girlfriends to anonymously 'independently corroborate' one side of the story veers dangerously towards some serious mind problems, that keep reminding me of the McCallum affair so many years ago - with the obvious difference that the main protagonists this time are obviously superb climbers, which makes the whole business even more baffling.
In reply to UKC News:
If the above (Graham Everitt's) account is true then this is pretty shocking. Worse than Si O'Conner perhaps as didn't he just claim things he hadn't done rather than ruining the rock in the process?
If the above (Graham Everitt's) account is true then this is pretty shocking. Worse than Si O'Conner perhaps as didn't he just claim things he hadn't done rather than ruining the rock in the process?
In reply to Mick Ward:
your'e right Mick this is a distressing business particularly as every time the Edwards' have any accusation of misdeeds directed at them they blame annonomous local climbers as the culprits, this is what really pisses me off, knowing most of the locals personally i can vouch for the fact that they are great bunch of decent people who would not be involved in any kind of subtefuge against the Edwards' or anyone else , indeed if there was a mystery chipper, the way news travels round here we would all know who it was , but then again i guess we do!.
I recieved an e-mail from Shane Ohly this morning informing me that he and a friend repeated another of Mark Edwards' E8's the other day and found manufactured/glued holds? he said he was going to send this info to UKC but I havn't seen it posted yet.
egg
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> Hi Graham,as you say, it may have been a practice session/previous attempt. However this doesn't align with the Mountain report: 'The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced.' And Wilson (rightly) was a stickler for detail.
>
> Obviously you saw what you saw. Nigel must know whether this was the FA or not.
>
> Although this may seem like nitpicking, yesterday there was a post decrying a FA by Roland on the Old Man of Stoer on the basis of loose holds. And then it transpired that others had previously done the FA anyway! Stuff like this, and the ENP slagging-off (an innovation which they were open about) make one despair of them ever getting a fair hearing.
>
> However the Cool Diamonds affair seems unequivocal.
>
> God, one way or the other, this is a distressing business!
>
> Mick
>
> Hi Graham,as you say, it may have been a practice session/previous attempt. However this doesn't align with the Mountain report: 'The route was cleaned and inspected by abseil a week prior to the ascent but not moves were practiced.' And Wilson (rightly) was a stickler for detail.
>
> Obviously you saw what you saw. Nigel must know whether this was the FA or not.
>
> Although this may seem like nitpicking, yesterday there was a post decrying a FA by Roland on the Old Man of Stoer on the basis of loose holds. And then it transpired that others had previously done the FA anyway! Stuff like this, and the ENP slagging-off (an innovation which they were open about) make one despair of them ever getting a fair hearing.
>
> However the Cool Diamonds affair seems unequivocal.
>
> God, one way or the other, this is a distressing business!
>
> Mick
your'e right Mick this is a distressing business particularly as every time the Edwards' have any accusation of misdeeds directed at them they blame annonomous local climbers as the culprits, this is what really pisses me off, knowing most of the locals personally i can vouch for the fact that they are great bunch of decent people who would not be involved in any kind of subtefuge against the Edwards' or anyone else , indeed if there was a mystery chipper, the way news travels round here we would all know who it was , but then again i guess we do!.
I recieved an e-mail from Shane Ohly this morning informing me that he and a friend repeated another of Mark Edwards' E8's the other day and found manufactured/glued holds? he said he was going to send this info to UKC but I havn't seen it posted yet.
egg
In reply to UKC News: i got bored reading all these posts half way down as we seemed to have strayed off the path that the original post was about
It seems to be that the damage has already been done to the granite of cornwall, and its a real shame, but it has already been done, so lets not take away Mr Edwards' original ascent or Nic's repeat, as both are pretty damn good
It seems to be that the damage has already been done to the granite of cornwall, and its a real shame, but it has already been done, so lets not take away Mr Edwards' original ascent or Nic's repeat, as both are pretty damn good
In reply to TomBond:
I know you are trying to be conciliatory here, but I think this spectacularly misses the point.
I know you are trying to be conciliatory here, but I think this spectacularly misses the point.
In reply to TomBond:
Just because the damage has already been done, doesn't mean we should let it lie. That would almost condone the action. An outcry may be ultimately pointless, with regards to finding the culprit, but it does send out the message that this sort of behavious is not acceptable in the UK.
> (In reply to UKC News) i got bored reading all these posts half way down as we seemed to have strayed off the path that the original post was about
>
> It seems to be that the damage has already been done to the granite of cornwall, and its a real shame, but it has already been done, so lets not take away Mr Edwards' original ascent or Nic's repeat, as both are pretty damn good
>
> It seems to be that the damage has already been done to the granite of cornwall, and its a real shame, but it has already been done, so lets not take away Mr Edwards' original ascent or Nic's repeat, as both are pretty damn good
Just because the damage has already been done, doesn't mean we should let it lie. That would almost condone the action. An outcry may be ultimately pointless, with regards to finding the culprit, but it does send out the message that this sort of behavious is not acceptable in the UK.
In reply to TomBond:
So what's to stop it happening again (other than the suspected culprit being abroad)? A little bad publicity might be a good thing.
> It seems to be that the damage has already been done to the granite of cornwall, and its a real shame, but it has already been done
So what's to stop it happening again (other than the suspected culprit being abroad)? A little bad publicity might be a good thing.
In reply to Michael Gordon: I'm not condoning it, but there really isn't any way of stopping it happening again apart from this bad publicity
it all, surely, depends on the ethics of the person or persons that did the damage
it all, surely, depends on the ethics of the person or persons that did the damage
In reply to Alan James - UKC: This sounds disgraceful. I'm not from the UK so I guess this doesn't concern me but if the above is true this Mark guy should have all his claimed FAs taken from him. If he showed up at my local crag I'd start lobbing rocks at him from above.
Colm
Colm
1
In reply to Monk:
The outcry might be, but cementing up the drilled holes as neatly as possible both sends a message and practically returns an unled wall to something like its original state.
And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too.
> (In reply to TomBond)
> [...]
>
> An outcry may be ultimately pointless,
> [...]
>
> An outcry may be ultimately pointless,
The outcry might be, but cementing up the drilled holes as neatly as possible both sends a message and practically returns an unled wall to something like its original state.
And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too.
In reply to TomBond:
You're missing the point. Sure the ascents are impressive and an awesome route but it's 'merely' an E6/7. No one will ever be able to do it at it's rightful challenge of E8 as the rock is permanently damaged. It's been brought down to someones weaker level with a drill rather than rising to the challenge of what it really should be. These cliffs are some of the most stunning areas in the world and people are letting rip with drills, it's simply not acceptable.
You're missing the point. Sure the ascents are impressive and an awesome route but it's 'merely' an E6/7. No one will ever be able to do it at it's rightful challenge of E8 as the rock is permanently damaged. It's been brought down to someones weaker level with a drill rather than rising to the challenge of what it really should be. These cliffs are some of the most stunning areas in the world and people are letting rip with drills, it's simply not acceptable.
In reply to TomBond: It's a complicated situation not least because there is a significant commercial dimension to it - big numbers, big course fees - and also trainees will presumably be inculcated with an 'alternative' ethic that for most people is not on.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
>And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too
LIKE IT, though mention could be made of it previously done with aid.
>And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too
LIKE IT, though mention could be made of it previously done with aid.
In reply to : It hasn't been proven who is responsible yet, at the moment it could be anybody, so I dont think it is fair to potentially ruin someones business and livelihood with speculation and rumour
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too.
This is pretty standard up north - I've come across a number of comments in guidebooks stating that no routes on rock between x and y are included because chipping has occurred. In reply to Michael Gordon:
Are you getting confused, Graham Everitt's account was of Rowland Edwards using undeclared aid on Resurrection, there's no implication that he chipped anything on the Cromlech.
> If the above (Graham Everitt's) account is true then this is pretty shocking. Worse than Si O'Conner perhaps as didn't he just claim things he hadn't done rather than ruining the rock in the process?
Are you getting confused, Graham Everitt's account was of Rowland Edwards using undeclared aid on Resurrection, there's no implication that he chipped anything on the Cromlech.
In reply to Tyler:
See Alan James's 09:12 repost of Egg's original post.
> Are you getting confused, Graham Everitt's account was of Rowland Edwards using undeclared aid on Resurrection ...
See Alan James's 09:12 repost of Egg's original post.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
That'd be removal of any reference to Nic's repeat on the drilled placements* not Mark's initial ascent which he's stated was not on enhanced placements then?
*not intended as a criticism of Nic or an accusation, just pointing out that the only person *known* to have used the drilled placements is Nic yet it's Mark (and bizarrely his father for seperate ascent 30 years ago... gotta love forums) taking the brunt of the flak without any proof to counter his assertion that the drilling was nothing to do with him. Would you all be so quick to call a stranger a liar face to face?
The point I'm making is that all any of us have to go on that isn't rumor, supposition and prejudice is the word of two people. Those are the only known facts, one states there were no drilled holes when he did it and that he didn't drill them subsequently, the other states there are drilled holes now.
What would be interesting is to see whether anyone else has been on it in the intervening period and have their take on the matter. Alas noisy witch hunts like this are unlikely to tempt anyone into offering a qualified opinion.
Anyway, if half the effort that has gone into this thread had been directed at repairing the holes it'd be fixed by now.
jk
> And since this kind of thing is ego-driven, removing reference to the route in any future guidebook (until it's led cleanly) would be appropriate too.
That'd be removal of any reference to Nic's repeat on the drilled placements* not Mark's initial ascent which he's stated was not on enhanced placements then?
*not intended as a criticism of Nic or an accusation, just pointing out that the only person *known* to have used the drilled placements is Nic yet it's Mark (and bizarrely his father for seperate ascent 30 years ago... gotta love forums) taking the brunt of the flak without any proof to counter his assertion that the drilling was nothing to do with him. Would you all be so quick to call a stranger a liar face to face?
The point I'm making is that all any of us have to go on that isn't rumor, supposition and prejudice is the word of two people. Those are the only known facts, one states there were no drilled holes when he did it and that he didn't drill them subsequently, the other states there are drilled holes now.
What would be interesting is to see whether anyone else has been on it in the intervening period and have their take on the matter. Alas noisy witch hunts like this are unlikely to tempt anyone into offering a qualified opinion.
Anyway, if half the effort that has gone into this thread had been directed at repairing the holes it'd be fixed by now.
jk
In reply to Tyler:
Not on the Cromlech, no. I was referring to the 'Cool Diamonds' account which is definitely the more worrying one, and the one where Mark Edwards is also alleged to be present. Not the same event of course as the most recent controversy, but if you are involved in one thing it is more likely that you will be guilty of another.
Not on the Cromlech, no. I was referring to the 'Cool Diamonds' account which is definitely the more worrying one, and the one where Mark Edwards is also alleged to be present. Not the same event of course as the most recent controversy, but if you are involved in one thing it is more likely that you will be guilty of another.
In reply to jkarran:
I don't know what to think. Let's just say the circumstances surrounding the route are controversial and if I were editing the guidebook I would want to make some enquiries and then make a judgement about whether the route went in or not, and with what caveats and comment.
I don't know what to think. Let's just say the circumstances surrounding the route are controversial and if I were editing the guidebook I would want to make some enquiries and then make a judgement about whether the route went in or not, and with what caveats and comment.
In reply to jkarran:
re: "Would you all be so quick to call a stranger a liar face to face?"
In this case, yes. I know who I believe, so I'd have no problems with that.
re: "Would you all be so quick to call a stranger a liar face to face?"
In this case, yes. I know who I believe, so I'd have no problems with that.
In reply to eggburt1952:
I await the next news report with interest.
> (In reply to Mick Ward)
> I recieved an e-mail from Shane Ohly this morning informing me that he and a friend repeated another of Mark Edwards' E8's the other day and found manufactured/glued holds? he said he was going to send this info to UKC but I havn't seen it posted yet.
>
> I recieved an e-mail from Shane Ohly this morning informing me that he and a friend repeated another of Mark Edwards' E8's the other day and found manufactured/glued holds? he said he was going to send this info to UKC but I havn't seen it posted yet.
>
I await the next news report with interest.
In reply to tim carruthers:
Who you believe? Surely what you actually mean is who you *don't* believe? Both accounts could be true, they're not mutually exclusive.
jk
> (In reply to jkarran)
> In this case, yes. I know who I believe, so I'd have no problems with that.
> In this case, yes. I know who I believe, so I'd have no problems with that.
Who you believe? Surely what you actually mean is who you *don't* believe? Both accounts could be true, they're not mutually exclusive.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
In this case, yes. But the word of at least one other person in reference to other cases would seem to counter Mark Edward's arguments.
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
>
> The point I'm making is that all any of us have to go on that isn't rumor, supposition and prejudice is the word of two people.
>
> The point I'm making is that all any of us have to go on that isn't rumor, supposition and prejudice is the word of two people.
In this case, yes. But the word of at least one other person in reference to other cases would seem to counter Mark Edward's arguments.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Ah yes, sorry, I understand now.
> Not on the Cromlech, no. I was referring to the 'Cool Diamonds' account which is definitely the more worrying one
Ah yes, sorry, I understand now.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Deservedly or not*, it's a witch hunt, if anyone else but Mark** was being accused this thread would have been long since pulled.
*I've no idea and no vested interest
**especially anyone else running a guiding business. Witness the numerous disappearing "PYB said..." threads over the years
jk
Deservedly or not*, it's a witch hunt, if anyone else but Mark** was being accused this thread would have been long since pulled.
*I've no idea and no vested interest
**especially anyone else running a guiding business. Witness the numerous disappearing "PYB said..." threads over the years
jk
In reply to jkarran:
I have some sympathy with your sense of fairness, and it's all rather unseemly. However, I don't think it's a witch hunt because it's pretty clear that the drilled placements are real, so somebody drilled them. More importantly, the only response available in a case like this is the public expression of disapproval and that's exactly what's happening.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from the facts of the case and you can see that a phantom driller taking the trouble to alter the route in between the first ascent and Nic Sellars' recent repeat might seem a little far-fetched to some people. It's not impossible. It's not impossible that the same sort of thing happened at Sennen a few years back. Not impossible, but weird, you might think.
I have some sympathy with your sense of fairness, and it's all rather unseemly. However, I don't think it's a witch hunt because it's pretty clear that the drilled placements are real, so somebody drilled them. More importantly, the only response available in a case like this is the public expression of disapproval and that's exactly what's happening.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from the facts of the case and you can see that a phantom driller taking the trouble to alter the route in between the first ascent and Nic Sellars' recent repeat might seem a little far-fetched to some people. It's not impossible. It's not impossible that the same sort of thing happened at Sennen a few years back. Not impossible, but weird, you might think.
In reply to UKC News:
I have to agree with JK. Do the Edwards advertise at all on UKC?
To me the News item is News and should stand, but the thread replies have gone too far.
I have to agree with JK. Do the Edwards advertise at all on UKC?
To me the News item is News and should stand, but the thread replies have gone too far.
In reply to sjc:
Rowland is a Rockfax author who I have had a good working relationship with over the last 14 years. Compass West have advertised in the past but aren't currently.
I haven't worked with Mark but I am in email contact with him about this thread. I have invited him to put his case forward to support his claim that the chipping was done by someone else.
Regarding the removing of threads: the Plas y Brenin thread directly related to the business activities, namely the quality of their instruction and it was put in an unqualified way. In this discussion, the quality of the courses run by Compass West is not in question as I am sure many satisfied customers would testify.
I am a little uncomfortable about dredging up old stories from the 60s and 70s. Memories fade and change, as do ethics.
Alan
> I have to agree with JK. Do the Edwards advertise at all on UKC?
Rowland is a Rockfax author who I have had a good working relationship with over the last 14 years. Compass West have advertised in the past but aren't currently.
I haven't worked with Mark but I am in email contact with him about this thread. I have invited him to put his case forward to support his claim that the chipping was done by someone else.
Regarding the removing of threads: the Plas y Brenin thread directly related to the business activities, namely the quality of their instruction and it was put in an unqualified way. In this discussion, the quality of the courses run by Compass West is not in question as I am sure many satisfied customers would testify.
I am a little uncomfortable about dredging up old stories from the 60s and 70s. Memories fade and change, as do ethics.
Alan
In reply to Michael Gordon:
More likely than what?
a: not being guilty?
b: more likely than somebody else being guilty?
Either way, your statement is incorrect, just because one person has past form neither means that they are more likely to re-offend than to not re-offend, nor that nobody else has past form.
Not splitting heirs, just keen to separate corroborative evidence from speculation.
> (In reply to Tyler)
>
but if you are involved in one thing it is more likely that you will be guilty of another.>
More likely than what?
a: not being guilty?
b: more likely than somebody else being guilty?
Either way, your statement is incorrect, just because one person has past form neither means that they are more likely to re-offend than to not re-offend, nor that nobody else has past form.
Not splitting heirs, just keen to separate corroborative evidence from speculation.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
So presumably Mark has seen the photos of the slots and is not claiming that they are natural and are as he originally found the face. That rules out one possibility. The comments by Mark in the OP mention that the protection for the first ascent was narrow cam slots.
> I have invited [Mark] to put his case forward to support his claim that the chipping was done by someone else.
So presumably Mark has seen the photos of the slots and is not claiming that they are natural and are as he originally found the face. That rules out one possibility. The comments by Mark in the OP mention that the protection for the first ascent was narrow cam slots.
In reply to Southern Man:
Splitting hairs
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> Not splitting heirs,
> Not splitting heirs,
Splitting hairs
In reply to sjc:
When the subject of deliberately damaging rock is concerned I'm not sure if one can ever go too far.
> (In reply to UKC News)
> To me the News item is News and should stand, but the thread replies have gone too far.
> To me the News item is News and should stand, but the thread replies have gone too far.
When the subject of deliberately damaging rock is concerned I'm not sure if one can ever go too far.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
LOL, I disapprove of what has been done, whoever has done it, but it`s 5 little holes in a bloody great cliff, I think you need a little balance in your life.
> (In reply to sjc)
> [...]
>
> When the subject of deliberately damaging rock is concerned I'm not sure if one can ever go too far.
> [...]
>
> When the subject of deliberately damaging rock is concerned I'm not sure if one can ever go too far.
LOL, I disapprove of what has been done, whoever has done it, but it`s 5 little holes in a bloody great cliff, I think you need a little balance in your life.
In reply to sjc:
Its more than that. Some people take climbing more seriously than you do. This also isn't the first time that Mark has done it. His handiwork is seen in more than one country even. When someone goes round methodically destroying all these incredible hard lines and then having the gall to lie about it in the interests of feeding their own withered ego it makes for some really angering material.
Its more than that. Some people take climbing more seriously than you do. This also isn't the first time that Mark has done it. His handiwork is seen in more than one country even. When someone goes round methodically destroying all these incredible hard lines and then having the gall to lie about it in the interests of feeding their own withered ego it makes for some really angering material.
In reply to sjc:
As ever, in the context of climbing (which is as important or unimportant as you want it to be)! I won't lose any sleep over it but it is a bit sad.
As ever, in the context of climbing (which is as important or unimportant as you want it to be)! I won't lose any sleep over it but it is a bit sad.
In reply to UKC News:
The "other channel" has a thread involving this as well. Have a read:
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,15391.0.html
The "other channel" has a thread involving this as well. Have a read:
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,15391.0.html
In reply to Southern Man:
I agree that it's more speculation than evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't a basis for it.
In answer to your question,
If you have your house broken into, and the accused who was in the local area at the time is known to have broken into houses before, I think you'll agree that you're more likely to believe that they did it than if they didn't have this history. This may seem unfair but to some extent it would be their own fault for doing the wrong things in the past.
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
> but if you are involved in one thing it is more likely that you will be guilty of another.
>
> More likely than what?
>
> a: not being guilty?
>
> b: more likely than somebody else being guilty?
>
> [...]
> but if you are involved in one thing it is more likely that you will be guilty of another.
>
> More likely than what?
>
> a: not being guilty?
>
> b: more likely than somebody else being guilty?
>
I agree that it's more speculation than evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't a basis for it.
In answer to your question,
If you have your house broken into, and the accused who was in the local area at the time is known to have broken into houses before, I think you'll agree that you're more likely to believe that they did it than if they didn't have this history. This may seem unfair but to some extent it would be their own fault for doing the wrong things in the past.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That's completel rubbish jcm!
> (In reply to Kipper-Phil Smith)
I didn't think the poster was making any point about the grade, merely that a lot more aid was used than was declared. Mind you, my impression is that aid points in some way didn't really count during the 70's unless you really used them a lot, so perhaps this was common enough.>
> jcm
> jcm
That's completel rubbish jcm!
In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al
My point about the grade was that the poster said "I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a"
The documentary evidence from Crags and Mountain magazine suggests that Rowland Edwards would have been most unlikely to have graded it E46A as e grades did not come into usage until a couple of years after the event as documented in my earlier post.
I just think if we try to turn up the truth about events we should get to the whole truth and in this case Rowland Edwards graded Resurection XS5c and reported it to the magazines as such.
It would be good to get hold of a better first ascent account as Mountain makes no mention of the use of tension at the top to go left but Big Ron in an article called Super Routes in Crags 5 says that Rowley used tension to move left at the top. It seems that Rowland Edwards admitted that more than pulling on a couple of bits of gear and 2 rests was involved.
Best wishes
Kipper
> I didn't think the poster was making any point about the grade, merely that a lot more aid was used than was declared. Mind you, my impression is that aid points in some way didn't really count during the 70's unless you really used them a lot, so perhaps this was common enough.
Hi Al
My point about the grade was that the poster said "I saw Rowland aid climbing "Resurection" on the Cromlech and give it E4 6a"
The documentary evidence from Crags and Mountain magazine suggests that Rowland Edwards would have been most unlikely to have graded it E46A as e grades did not come into usage until a couple of years after the event as documented in my earlier post.
I just think if we try to turn up the truth about events we should get to the whole truth and in this case Rowland Edwards graded Resurection XS5c and reported it to the magazines as such.
It would be good to get hold of a better first ascent account as Mountain makes no mention of the use of tension at the top to go left but Big Ron in an article called Super Routes in Crags 5 says that Rowley used tension to move left at the top. It seems that Rowland Edwards admitted that more than pulling on a couple of bits of gear and 2 rests was involved.
Best wishes
Kipper
In reply to Al Evans:
lol sounds like there was a lot of skullduggery back in the day!
Would you not agree that ethics are better now? There seems not to be any acceptance of cheating methods, eveeyone is encouraged now to give full details of their ascent.
Mind you, I sort of agree that this is just five tiny holes in a cliff, its bad form but probably less than twenty people will ever climb this route and now they have even less chance of getting hurt, so whats the massive problem.
lol sounds like there was a lot of skullduggery back in the day!
Would you not agree that ethics are better now? There seems not to be any acceptance of cheating methods, eveeyone is encouraged now to give full details of their ascent.
Mind you, I sort of agree that this is just five tiny holes in a cliff, its bad form but probably less than twenty people will ever climb this route and now they have even less chance of getting hurt, so whats the massive problem.
In reply to Derek O:
"Mind you, I sort of agree that this is just five tiny holes in a cliff, its bad form but probably less than twenty people will ever climb this route and now they have even less chance of getting hurt, so whats the massive problem"
I wonder if anyone said the same about those hardcore HVSs back in the 50s? quite a few people are doing HVSs these days... :o¦
Admittedly it doesn't seem that likely that your average climber will be doing E6 and above in ten or twenty years time but we really dont know how things will go.
"Mind you, I sort of agree that this is just five tiny holes in a cliff, its bad form but probably less than twenty people will ever climb this route and now they have even less chance of getting hurt, so whats the massive problem"
I wonder if anyone said the same about those hardcore HVSs back in the 50s? quite a few people are doing HVSs these days... :o¦
Admittedly it doesn't seem that likely that your average climber will be doing E6 and above in ten or twenty years time but we really dont know how things will go.
In reply to royal:
Quite frankly it doesn't sound very hard for an E6 if its well protected and only french 6c climbing. I imagine there are a lot of climbers currently operating at this level. Whether they would be very motivated to go and try this route in its current state is a different matter though...
> Admittedly it doesn't seem that likely that your average climber will be doing E6 and above in ten or twenty years time but we really dont know how things will go.
Quite frankly it doesn't sound very hard for an E6 if its well protected and only french 6c climbing. I imagine there are a lot of climbers currently operating at this level. Whether they would be very motivated to go and try this route in its current state is a different matter though...
In reply to chris_j_s:
If I was looking for an E6 I think I'd be delighted to find one with 5 bombroof gear placements! I suspect there will be others for whom that is more important than how those placements appeared, but time will tell.
> I imagine there are a lot of climbers currently operating at this level. Whether they would be very motivated to go and try this route in its current state is a different matter though.
If I was looking for an E6 I think I'd be delighted to find one with 5 bombroof gear placements! I suspect there will be others for whom that is more important than how those placements appeared, but time will tell.
In reply to chris_j_s: I would have thought that it would appeal to people who do both trad & sport; allows sport level protection but nothing unsightly from the ground.
In reply to Derek O:
If it's E6 than a lot more than twenty poeple will lead it. Next time I'm down I'll have a go.
Seems to me his grading is getting less accurate, two grades below what's stated. Think his mean over-grade in parts of Spain are more like 8's to 7's and 7's to 6's. That is only one number right? LOL
If it's E6 than a lot more than twenty poeple will lead it. Next time I'm down I'll have a go.
Seems to me his grading is getting less accurate, two grades below what's stated. Think his mean over-grade in parts of Spain are more like 8's to 7's and 7's to 6's. That is only one number right? LOL
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: You really don't get it, do you? There isn't a route in the world that couldn't be made easier by some judicious Bosch action. Where would you draw the line?
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
So if someone drilled 2 cam slots in the groove of Gaia and made it E6, you'd be happy with that?
So if someone drilled 2 cam slots in the groove of Gaia and made it E6, you'd be happy with that?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Where would you draw the line?
The great thing about drills with rotary stop on is you can use them to draw a line pretty much anywhere, just get a decent chisel
Where would you draw the line?
The great thing about drills with rotary stop on is you can use them to draw a line pretty much anywhere, just get a decent chisel
In reply to bentley's biceps:
I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
In reply to Derek O:
If they chipped a few more holds and made it E2 I might give it a go....
> (In reply to bentley's biceps)
>
> I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
>
> I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
If they chipped a few more holds and made it E2 I might give it a go....
In reply to Rob Exile Ward and Bentley's Biceps:
You dont seriously think that I'm supporting the creation of quasi sport routes do you? Just hypothesising that there will be a few folks delighted to jump onto this one.
You dont seriously think that I'm supporting the creation of quasi sport routes do you? Just hypothesising that there will be a few folks delighted to jump onto this one.
In reply to Derek O: I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name.
Clearly you are clueless about what climbers care about then. This thread should be an indication of how much people care. Times that by at least 3 if someone chipped Gaia.
Clearly you are clueless about what climbers care about then. This thread should be an indication of how much people care. Times that by at least 3 if someone chipped Gaia.
In reply to Derek O:
It's called top roping.
> (In reply to bentley's biceps)
>
> I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
>
> I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
It's called top roping.
In reply to Derek O:
I couldnt climb Gaia if it had twenty drilled cam slots in it, but I'm pretty sure that my "enjoyment" would be far greater if I knew that I'd climbed it in as good a style as the first ascenscionist, and that the sheer terror thus involved would add to and not subtract from the memory. Is this terribly old-fashioned?
> I don't think very many people would care, (Gaia) is just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
I couldnt climb Gaia if it had twenty drilled cam slots in it, but I'm pretty sure that my "enjoyment" would be far greater if I knew that I'd climbed it in as good a style as the first ascenscionist, and that the sheer terror thus involved would add to and not subtract from the memory. Is this terribly old-fashioned?
In reply to UKC News:
There is some completely idiotic and close minded stuff going on here. Do people not realise that climbing is enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people and that maybe if they can't climb something without chipping then they should go and enjoy one of the other hundreds of thousands of routes in the country and leave the harder stuff for others who might need a challenge?
And this isn't just one wall with five little holes. This is the whole of the South West under threat from one incredibly selfish person who refuses to see past his own ego.
Some of the comments on here regarding chipping and its importance really DO seem like the thin end of the wedge.
Let all be clear. Since the early 1900s chipping IS the ULTIMATE cardinal sin in rock climbing and should be treated as such. Those that wantonly repeat offend should indeed be met with anger!
If only Ken Wilson was on this thread.
There is some completely idiotic and close minded stuff going on here. Do people not realise that climbing is enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people and that maybe if they can't climb something without chipping then they should go and enjoy one of the other hundreds of thousands of routes in the country and leave the harder stuff for others who might need a challenge?
And this isn't just one wall with five little holes. This is the whole of the South West under threat from one incredibly selfish person who refuses to see past his own ego.
Some of the comments on here regarding chipping and its importance really DO seem like the thin end of the wedge.
Let all be clear. Since the early 1900s chipping IS the ULTIMATE cardinal sin in rock climbing and should be treated as such. Those that wantonly repeat offend should indeed be met with anger!
If only Ken Wilson was on this thread.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
Come on Jamie. Sorry to single you out but so much stuff that you post on here is garbage! No offence meant.
Hugs and Kisses
Will
Come on Jamie. Sorry to single you out but so much stuff that you post on here is garbage! No offence meant.
Hugs and Kisses
Will
In reply to Will Hunt:
How do you expect to not cause offence with that statement? If you were a little prettier the hugs and kisses might negate this, but sadly not.
> Sorry to single you out but so much stuff that you post on here is garbage! No offence meant.
How do you expect to not cause offence with that statement? If you were a little prettier the hugs and kisses might negate this, but sadly not.
In reply to Derek O:
Excellent idea! And while you're on, a few chipped cam slots in Archangel, Downhill Racer and Edge Lane please. That would bring those climbs nicely down to my level. Ta much.
> I don't think very many people would care, it's just a bit of rock that happens to be famous and
> have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you
> could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
> have a cool name. Plus then if you were good enough but didnt want to risk breaking your legs you
> could try it and enjoy it instead of being scared witless.
Excellent idea! And while you're on, a few chipped cam slots in Archangel, Downhill Racer and Edge Lane please. That would bring those climbs nicely down to my level. Ta much.
In reply to shark:
Ok I do agree, I wouldnt really think drilling Gaia would be a good thing. I was being a bit of devils advocate because it seems like people getting a bit carried away over something that isnt really that big a deal. It seems to me more the sneakiness of not being straight about it thats the problem, after all he could have just put bolts in to the same effect and made it a sport route.
Ok I do agree, I wouldnt really think drilling Gaia would be a good thing. I was being a bit of devils advocate because it seems like people getting a bit carried away over something that isnt really that big a deal. It seems to me more the sneakiness of not being straight about it thats the problem, after all he could have just put bolts in to the same effect and made it a sport route.
In reply to UKC News: Manufacturing holds or protection slots is totally unacceptable behaviour on a trad cliff, and is contrary to the ethics of the sport. Climbers operating at elite levels or making a living from climbing have an even greater responsibility to uphold the ethics of the sport as they are the trend setters/role models.
I agree with the comments about this potentially being the thin end of the wedge. The incident should be given wide publicity to didcourage any future copycats.
Dragging up issues from 20 or 30 years ago will not help, may detract from the main message and be seen as a witch hunt
On a light hearted note, with regards to pulling on gear and claiming a clean ascent...well,er thats seems acceptable behaviour!
I agree with the comments about this potentially being the thin end of the wedge. The incident should be given wide publicity to didcourage any future copycats.
Dragging up issues from 20 or 30 years ago will not help, may detract from the main message and be seen as a witch hunt
On a light hearted note, with regards to pulling on gear and claiming a clean ascent...well,er thats seems acceptable behaviour!
In reply to Derek O:
No he couldn't. There is an agreed 'no bolts' policy in the area. Perhaps you should read up a little on the ethics and mores of climbing in the UK. On a universal scale, it is petty and it is meaningless, in the same way that the rules of football or chess are, but this is the game we play.
> (In reply to shark)
>
> after all he could have just put bolts in to the same effect and made it a sport route.
>
> after all he could have just put bolts in to the same effect and made it a sport route.
No he couldn't. There is an agreed 'no bolts' policy in the area. Perhaps you should read up a little on the ethics and mores of climbing in the UK. On a universal scale, it is petty and it is meaningless, in the same way that the rules of football or chess are, but this is the game we play.
In reply to Derek O:
Bolting a route at Lands end! If my memory is correct that has been done and caused a bit of a stir! If I recall that did not go down to well either!
Now who was the climber that was responsible for bolting routes on granite in west Penwith?
Bolting a route at Lands end! If my memory is correct that has been done and caused a bit of a stir! If I recall that did not go down to well either!
Now who was the climber that was responsible for bolting routes on granite in west Penwith?
In reply to Derek O:
Do you really think bolts would be considered acceptable at places like Lands End and Sennen?? Wasn't that settled over the Red Rose controversy?
> ... after all he could have just put bolts in to the same effect and made it a sport route.
Do you really think bolts would be considered acceptable at places like Lands End and Sennen?? Wasn't that settled over the Red Rose controversy?
In reply to Derek O:
for your reading:
http://www.planetfear.com/news/Cornish_Bolt_Debate_Update_1062.html
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=127812
http://www.javu.co.uk/Climbing/Articles/CornishBolts/index.shtml
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/old_db/areacom/minutes/SWMn0505X.pdf
should help with the 'ethics' of bolts in cornwall
for your reading:
http://www.planetfear.com/news/Cornish_Bolt_Debate_Update_1062.html
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=127812
http://www.javu.co.uk/Climbing/Articles/CornishBolts/index.shtml
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/old_db/areacom/minutes/SWMn0505X.pdf
should help with the 'ethics' of bolts in cornwall
In reply to UKC News: I am a local albeit useless climber and I have nothing personal against any of the Edwards family or indeed bolting for that matter. Ignoring past controversies, the present consensus amongst local climbers (although what constitutes "local" is debateable) is presently no drilled protection on any natural outcrops -something that is apparently well understood. What annoys me is not so much the holes - Lands End is a complete hole after all - but that someone is arrogant enough to totally ignore this consensus.
Chris Howell, Hayle
Chris Howell, Hayle
In reply to UKC News: I've just accepted an updated description for the route. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161
In reply to Mark Kemball: who sent that
In reply to crankey: I don't know! - Once you accept changes, the link to the contributor is lost, sorry, can't remember who it was.
In reply to Mark Kemball: that discription makes me want to know with even more interest what exactly was the protection that was used on the first ascent.and if noones going to tell us, why the big secret.
In reply to Chris H: Chris, a little off topic but out of interest where did you find the present local consensus?
Dan - St Ives
Dan - St Ives
In reply to UKC News:
I hope you will be able to post the FA pic of the route (in decent resolution) soon.
I hope you will be able to post the FA pic of the route (in decent resolution) soon.
In reply to Chris H: Thanks, I wondered whether you were referring to the meeting of 7 May 2005. The minutes appear to be a fairly accurate record of the meeting (which I didn't attend). I scanned through the minutes a while ago out of curiosity, but have read them a little more closely again in light of this thread and have made some observations -
On the basis of the 7 May 2005 meeting there does not appear to be a local consensus, or if there is a consensus it is hard to identify what it actually is. The meeting considered three resolutions:
First; "the following area from the bottom pitch of Several Species and the top pitch of Rich Pickings southwards to the descent ramp be designated a sports crag" NOT PASSED
Second; "existing workable bolts at CV should be allowed to remain" PASSED
Third: the general policy from 1999 should remain ("Cornwall - West Penwith No bolts acceptable on any cliff"). PASSED
The second and third resolution are entirely inconsistent with each other. This means that the present policy may construed with quite different outcomes: Either the 1999 general policy is in breach of the second resolution as CV (being in West Penwith and a cliff) is plastered in bolts, or the second resolution is in breach of the third in that no bolts are acceptable on any West Penwith cliff.
On the basis of the 7 May 2005 meeting there does not appear to be a local consensus, or if there is a consensus it is hard to identify what it actually is. The meeting considered three resolutions:
First; "the following area from the bottom pitch of Several Species and the top pitch of Rich Pickings southwards to the descent ramp be designated a sports crag" NOT PASSED
Second; "existing workable bolts at CV should be allowed to remain" PASSED
Third: the general policy from 1999 should remain ("Cornwall - West Penwith No bolts acceptable on any cliff"). PASSED
The second and third resolution are entirely inconsistent with each other. This means that the present policy may construed with quite different outcomes: Either the 1999 general policy is in breach of the second resolution as CV (being in West Penwith and a cliff) is plastered in bolts, or the second resolution is in breach of the third in that no bolts are acceptable on any West Penwith cliff.
In reply to Dan Dyson: yes I was at the meeting and found that a little strange but thats democracy for you!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I think, perhaps, that it was a reference to the fact that there was no grade harder than E10 at the time, so E10 was the hardest (concurrent) grade - not that that specific climb was the highest ever grade at that point in time...
Since then, we have had a famous E11, and an infamous - and soon downgraded - E12... So E10 is no longer the hardest...
||-)
> No it wasn't; there were loads of E10s by 2007 including ME's own Rewind and, perhaps most famously, Equilibrium.
I think, perhaps, that it was a reference to the fact that there was no grade harder than E10 at the time, so E10 was the hardest (concurrent) grade - not that that specific climb was the highest ever grade at that point in time...
Since then, we have had a famous E11, and an infamous - and soon downgraded - E12... So E10 is no longer the hardest...
||-)
In reply to UKC News: Not sure if I'm missing something here, but why the hell would you chip a route? Unless it's on a mod or a diff, you can just go and climb one of several thousand routes at a lower grade. Chip an E1 and it's not an E1 anymore.
Pretty sad for an individual to "cheat" at climbing. Hard to comprehend.
Pretty sad for an individual to "cheat" at climbing. Hard to comprehend.
In reply to Martin Haworth:
Manufacturing holds or protection slots is totally unacceptable behaviour on any cliff, and is completely at odds to the spirit of climbing
> (In reply to UKC News) Manufacturing holds or protection slots is totally unacceptable behaviour on a trad cliff, and is contrary to the ethics of the sport.
Manufacturing holds or protection slots is totally unacceptable behaviour on any cliff, and is completely at odds to the spirit of climbing
In reply to wayno265: It's an ego thing, can't do the route, chip it to bag the first ascent. Scumbags having been doing it since climbing started.
In reply to Dominion:
That's exactly what I meant. Just seemed surprising that there wasnt any noise about it at the time. I'm also bound to say that Boscawen didnt strike me as E10 terrain, but it has been a while.
> I think, perhaps, that it was a reference to the fact that there was no grade harder than E10 at the time, so E10 was the hardest (concurrent) grade - not that that specific climb was the highest ever grade at that point in time...
That's exactly what I meant. Just seemed surprising that there wasnt any noise about it at the time. I'm also bound to say that Boscawen didnt strike me as E10 terrain, but it has been a while.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
interestingly, there are 6 votes as to the grade.
who posted the votes...? have they climbed it...?
if so, then they could shed some light on the state of the route when they did it.
or have people been voting on routes they haven't climbed...? (not sure why people would do that)
cheers
gregor
interestingly, there are 6 votes as to the grade.
who posted the votes...? have they climbed it...?
if so, then they could shed some light on the state of the route when they did it.
or have people been voting on routes they haven't climbed...? (not sure why people would do that)
cheers
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Ha, those are all new since it was updated... Probably arn't from people who climbed it!
Ha, those are all new since it was updated... Probably arn't from people who climbed it!
In reply to JKinsella:
yes, thought so...
but why do people do it...?
here's another one:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=79571
and another:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=2171
yes, thought so...
but why do people do it...?
here's another one:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=79571
and another:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=2171
In reply to jkarran:
Yes, both accounts could be true. But only one is. This Edwards' thing has been going on for years...
> (In reply to old skool)
>
> [...]
>
> Who you believe? Surely what you actually mean is who you *don't* believe? Both accounts could be true, they're not mutually exclusive.
> jk
>
> [...]
>
> Who you believe? Surely what you actually mean is who you *don't* believe? Both accounts could be true, they're not mutually exclusive.
> jk
Yes, both accounts could be true. But only one is. This Edwards' thing has been going on for years...
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I'd imagine in the case of First and Last Wall it was for the lulz.
> (In reply to JKinsella)
> but why do people do it...?
I'd imagine in the case of First and Last Wall it was for the lulz.
In reply to UKC News: "Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. so maby sky hooks or was it rurps ,could be chewing gum with a long pigs intestine to clip.
In reply to UKC News:
Hey i cant comment on the recent incident in cornwall, but i have climbed with Mark and Rowland in spain for a few months (a few years ago) we did many new routes in and around the area they live.
I did not see any cheating on new routes or any evidence of using aid when climbing new routes, on the contary i found Rowland climbed at an amazing level not just for his age but any age, his leads were bold and hard on adventurous routes, some very loose.
Climbing with Mark i saw someone who trainined hard and had great vision for new routes any body who can climb 5/6 days a week for work and put up new routes on your day off is pretty dedicated.
Like i said i cant comment on whats happened but I'm pretty sure if it was regular practice to cheat i would have witnessed something during that time.
Matt
Hey i cant comment on the recent incident in cornwall, but i have climbed with Mark and Rowland in spain for a few months (a few years ago) we did many new routes in and around the area they live.
I did not see any cheating on new routes or any evidence of using aid when climbing new routes, on the contary i found Rowland climbed at an amazing level not just for his age but any age, his leads were bold and hard on adventurous routes, some very loose.
Climbing with Mark i saw someone who trainined hard and had great vision for new routes any body who can climb 5/6 days a week for work and put up new routes on your day off is pretty dedicated.
Like i said i cant comment on whats happened but I'm pretty sure if it was regular practice to cheat i would have witnessed something during that time.
Matt
In reply to crankey:
Have you been drinking diesel?
> (In reply to UKC News) "Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. so maby sky hooks or was it rurps ,could be chewing gum with a long pigs intestine to clip.
Have you been drinking diesel?
In reply to jonny2vesUKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
ts:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
ts:
In reply to Will Hunt:
I know where you are coming from, and I happen to agree with you, but there are other perspectives. There has been some very artful chipping in the past, both deliberate and accidental (I'm thinking target practice here). Maybe when we are all gone these chipped routes will be accepted as slightly substandard but worthwhile nonetheless (Cow Udder at Ilkley, or maybe La Rose et le Vampire at Buoux, or even the Chiseller which I always quite liked).
I'm almost certain, however, that this sort of long-term perspective is lost on whoever did the chipping in this case.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> There is some completely idiotic and close minded stuff going on here. Do people not realise that climbing is enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people and that maybe if they can't climb something without chipping then they should go and enjoy one of the other hundreds of thousands of routes in the country and leave the harder stuff for others who might need a challenge?
>
> And this isn't just one wall with five little holes. This is the whole of the South West under threat from one incredibly selfish person who refuses to see past his own ego.
>
> Some of the comments on here regarding chipping and its importance really DO seem like the thin end of the wedge.
>
> Let all be clear. Since the early 1900s chipping IS the ULTIMATE cardinal sin in rock climbing and should be treated as such. Those that wantonly repeat offend should indeed be met with anger!
>
> If only Ken Wilson was on this thread.
>
> There is some completely idiotic and close minded stuff going on here. Do people not realise that climbing is enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people and that maybe if they can't climb something without chipping then they should go and enjoy one of the other hundreds of thousands of routes in the country and leave the harder stuff for others who might need a challenge?
>
> And this isn't just one wall with five little holes. This is the whole of the South West under threat from one incredibly selfish person who refuses to see past his own ego.
>
> Some of the comments on here regarding chipping and its importance really DO seem like the thin end of the wedge.
>
> Let all be clear. Since the early 1900s chipping IS the ULTIMATE cardinal sin in rock climbing and should be treated as such. Those that wantonly repeat offend should indeed be met with anger!
>
> If only Ken Wilson was on this thread.
I know where you are coming from, and I happen to agree with you, but there are other perspectives. There has been some very artful chipping in the past, both deliberate and accidental (I'm thinking target practice here). Maybe when we are all gone these chipped routes will be accepted as slightly substandard but worthwhile nonetheless (Cow Udder at Ilkley, or maybe La Rose et le Vampire at Buoux, or even the Chiseller which I always quite liked).
I'm almost certain, however, that this sort of long-term perspective is lost on whoever did the chipping in this case.
In reply to crankey:
> (In reply to jonny2vesUKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event)
>
Yeah, I thought that's what you meant (it was hard to tell without the punctuation though).>
In reply to Alan James UKC
To be fair you should probably remove any reference to the fact that the Edwards run a company and the name of that company from your post as well
In reply to Tangler:
I'm not sure about that. I avoid buying anything made by Nestlé, e.g. Shredded Wheat, because of their disgusting practices promoting their powdered baby milk products in the third world.
I'm not sure about that. I avoid buying anything made by Nestlé, e.g. Shredded Wheat, because of their disgusting practices promoting their powdered baby milk products in the third world.
In reply to H.Swainsworth:
If UKC are going to delete certain threads critical of those who advertise with them, they need to be even handed in their treatment of other climbing companies.
A number of previous posts have been removed on this thread for that reason.
Nestle, cyclists, speeders, religion and the police are fair game
If UKC are going to delete certain threads critical of those who advertise with them, they need to be even handed in their treatment of other climbing companies.
A number of previous posts have been removed on this thread for that reason.
Nestle, cyclists, speeders, religion and the police are fair game
In reply to MHutch:
Excellent!
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> You vandal. Can't we just leave Downhill Racer as Livesey intended?
> You vandal. Can't we just leave Downhill Racer as Livesey intended?
Excellent!
In reply to gallam1:
I disagree. Ilkley is very heavily chipped (Doris, Chiseller, Ferdinand, Cow Udder etc etc etc) and I think it really is worse for it. Imagine the Doris slab without the chips!
It was, however, done under the ethics of the time and these routes have now become very popular. This Cornwall chipping is done completely out of step with modern ethics, against consensus and the route is doomed to fall into obscurity or be repaired.
Incidentally I think that whoever does the repair and reclimbs the routes should be recorded as the FA.
I disagree. Ilkley is very heavily chipped (Doris, Chiseller, Ferdinand, Cow Udder etc etc etc) and I think it really is worse for it. Imagine the Doris slab without the chips!
It was, however, done under the ethics of the time and these routes have now become very popular. This Cornwall chipping is done completely out of step with modern ethics, against consensus and the route is doomed to fall into obscurity or be repaired.
Incidentally I think that whoever does the repair and reclimbs the routes should be recorded as the FA.
In reply to Will Hunt:
Funny. I was going to mention what an awesome route Doris sans chips would have been.
Also Cow Udder - Another Gerty Berwick?
Funny. I was going to mention what an awesome route Doris sans chips would have been.
Also Cow Udder - Another Gerty Berwick?
In reply to Will Hunt:
>It was, however, done under the ethics of the time
I'm not sure about that. There wasn't such widespread publicity of course and perhaps people didn't care quite so much, but my understanding is that a fair amount of it is down to one particular individual who features prominently in one of Dennis Gray's books. So prominently, admittedly, that I've forgotten his name, although Dennis claims IIRC that he used to climb in, and indeed live in, an overcoat. Gibbons, maybe?
I also admit that DG's excellence tends to be as a raconteur rather than a scrupulous recorder of the truth. Still, there is a lot more at Ilkley than, say, Millstone, and an accidental local factor of this kind seems quite plausible.
jcm
>It was, however, done under the ethics of the time
I'm not sure about that. There wasn't such widespread publicity of course and perhaps people didn't care quite so much, but my understanding is that a fair amount of it is down to one particular individual who features prominently in one of Dennis Gray's books. So prominently, admittedly, that I've forgotten his name, although Dennis claims IIRC that he used to climb in, and indeed live in, an overcoat. Gibbons, maybe?
I also admit that DG's excellence tends to be as a raconteur rather than a scrupulous recorder of the truth. Still, there is a lot more at Ilkley than, say, Millstone, and an accidental local factor of this kind seems quite plausible.
jcm
In reply to Dominion:
(Apologies if you're not referring to 07 - I've rather lost track.)
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> [...]
>
> I think, perhaps, that it was a reference to the fact that there was no grade harder than E10 at the time, so E10 was the hardest (concurrent) grade - not that that specific climb was the highest ever grade at that point in time...
>
By 'at that point in time', do you mean 2007? In which case, E10 wasn't the hardest grade - Rhapsody was graded E11 in April 06. >
> [...]
>
> I think, perhaps, that it was a reference to the fact that there was no grade harder than E10 at the time, so E10 was the hardest (concurrent) grade - not that that specific climb was the highest ever grade at that point in time...
>
(Apologies if you're not referring to 07 - I've rather lost track.)
In reply to Will Hunt:
Whos going to go and repair it, like come on, youd abseil down and put a little concrete into the slots just so you could get an FA, even though it has been climbed by at least three people already?
Plus, it's a seacliff, mother nature will be laughing about all this fuss over a few tiny holes when a storm next winter makes the whole thing collapse.
> Incidentally I think that whoever does the repair and reclimbs the routes should be recorded as the FA.
Whos going to go and repair it, like come on, youd abseil down and put a little concrete into the slots just so you could get an FA, even though it has been climbed by at least three people already?
Plus, it's a seacliff, mother nature will be laughing about all this fuss over a few tiny holes when a storm next winter makes the whole thing collapse.
In reply to Will Hunt:
People talk about the FA as if its some sort of wee trophy , not just the simple fact of climbing the thing first!
People talk about the FA as if its some sort of wee trophy , not just the simple fact of climbing the thing first!
In reply to Will Hunt:
As JCM syas there was no 'ethics' that allowed chipping 30/40/50 years ago - just some (one) misguided individual at Ilkley/Caley. So not really that different to the Cornish shambles.
Chris
As JCM syas there was no 'ethics' that allowed chipping 30/40/50 years ago - just some (one) misguided individual at Ilkley/Caley. So not really that different to the Cornish shambles.
Chris
In reply to Derek O:
There have been quite a few such repair jobs in cases such as this. The motive isn't necessarily to re-claim the ascent, it can be simple disgust at the action. I think it quite likely that someone will repair these slots.
> Whos going to go and repair it, like come on, youd abseil down and put a little concrete into the slots [...]
There have been quite a few such repair jobs in cases such as this. The motive isn't necessarily to re-claim the ascent, it can be simple disgust at the action. I think it quite likely that someone will repair these slots.
In reply to Derek O:
Without wanting to be overly nasty, in your posts on this thread you seem to have little feel for climbing culture and traditions.
You know, some people talk about the first 4-minute mile as though it was some sort of wee trophy, not just the simple fact of running it a little faster.
> People talk about the FA as if its some sort of wee trophy , not just the simple fact of climbing the thing first!
Without wanting to be overly nasty, in your posts on this thread you seem to have little feel for climbing culture and traditions.
You know, some people talk about the first 4-minute mile as though it was some sort of wee trophy, not just the simple fact of running it a little faster.
In reply to Derek O: Yeah! I know right?! It's like when someone wins wimbledon or something and *they* get given a trophy! After all, I don't give a sh*t about tennis therefore it *can't* be important!
In reply to Derek O:
Well it wouldn't be the first time! People repair chipping and even just eroded holds all the time. New Jerusalem at Caley recently (obviously not chipping just wear and tear on a sandy hold) and up at Mytholmroyd are a couple of examples from the past few months. Obviously these examples are different as they don't involve chipping, just erosion. (Also the big flake at the top of The Web has a load of cement behind it. Don't put gear on it!)
For examples of people repairing chipping I can think of Buzz repairing a chip on Black Magic at Pex (chipped after FA), Dawes repairing Indian Face when he found chipped RP slots.
Obviously these FAs weren't reclaimed as the FA was done with the route intact.
The fact that its a sea cliff is irrelevant. By their very nature as formations of geological erosion ALL crags that you have EVER climbed on are in the slow process of falling down. But I guess that means its not a shame that Dolphin's piece de resistance at Deer Bield fell down, eh?
Be under no illusion. First Ascents of the calibre that this wall would have been in its original condition are great achievments worthy of kudos and, critically for some, sponsorship deals!
Well it wouldn't be the first time! People repair chipping and even just eroded holds all the time. New Jerusalem at Caley recently (obviously not chipping just wear and tear on a sandy hold) and up at Mytholmroyd are a couple of examples from the past few months. Obviously these examples are different as they don't involve chipping, just erosion. (Also the big flake at the top of The Web has a load of cement behind it. Don't put gear on it!)
For examples of people repairing chipping I can think of Buzz repairing a chip on Black Magic at Pex (chipped after FA), Dawes repairing Indian Face when he found chipped RP slots.
Obviously these FAs weren't reclaimed as the FA was done with the route intact.
The fact that its a sea cliff is irrelevant. By their very nature as formations of geological erosion ALL crags that you have EVER climbed on are in the slow process of falling down. But I guess that means its not a shame that Dolphin's piece de resistance at Deer Bield fell down, eh?
Be under no illusion. First Ascents of the calibre that this wall would have been in its original condition are great achievments worthy of kudos and, critically for some, sponsorship deals!
In reply to Derek O:
I'm afraid to say, Derek, that while I was typing my diatribe Coel and Andy hit the nail firmly on the head. I mean my knowledge of climbing history and culture is pretty narrow but you've put me firmly in the shade.
I'm afraid to say, Derek, that while I was typing my diatribe Coel and Andy hit the nail firmly on the head. I mean my knowledge of climbing history and culture is pretty narrow but you've put me firmly in the shade.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well I'll admit I'm pretty new to this game, but maybe a bit of an outsider perspective isnt such a bad thing sometimes? Maybe climbing culture and traditions should question themselves too, it just seems from a simple perspective of common sense whether youre a climber or not that a little pespective is needed.
I don't see how your point about the 4 minute mile relates to the FA thing....?
Well I'll admit I'm pretty new to this game, but maybe a bit of an outsider perspective isnt such a bad thing sometimes? Maybe climbing culture and traditions should question themselves too, it just seems from a simple perspective of common sense whether youre a climber or not that a little pespective is needed.
I don't see how your point about the 4 minute mile relates to the FA thing....?
In reply to Chris Craggs:
My mistake. Interested to hear that the damage was done by a lone operator. I guess there were no UKC witch hunts back then.
My mistake. Interested to hear that the damage was done by a lone operator. I guess there were no UKC witch hunts back then.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
And Widdop and Almscliff and Brimham and Wimberry and the rest? Busy chap! It appears the shameless manufacturing of routes has in the past been much more widely acceptable than it is today.
On a different scale the subtle <cough> 'adjustment' of holds to make easier, more balanced routes has been going on for years, we can get all high and mighty about it now but the reality is it's resulted in a lot of routes people enjoy today without even noticing the chips. Maybe it shouldn't be condoned but it is a fact of life.
jk
> As JCM syas there was no 'ethics' that allowed chipping 30/40/50 years ago - just some (one) misguided individual at Ilkley/Caley. So not really that different to the Cornish shambles.
And Widdop and Almscliff and Brimham and Wimberry and the rest? Busy chap! It appears the shameless manufacturing of routes has in the past been much more widely acceptable than it is today.
On a different scale the subtle <cough> 'adjustment' of holds to make easier, more balanced routes has been going on for years, we can get all high and mighty about it now but the reality is it's resulted in a lot of routes people enjoy today without even noticing the chips. Maybe it shouldn't be condoned but it is a fact of life.
jk
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
I wasnt saying that doing a FA isnt important, I meant with reference to Wills post about awarding it to someone else, that it isnt just a trophy awarded by a climbing panel to whoever they think deserves it most!
I wasnt saying that doing a FA isnt important, I meant with reference to Wills post about awarding it to someone else, that it isnt just a trophy awarded by a climbing panel to whoever they think deserves it most!
In reply to Derek O:
Think of it in terms of grades. Like for instance the first confirmed say, E0 was a marker like the 4 minute mile.
Think of it in terms of grades. Like for instance the first confirmed say, E0 was a marker like the 4 minute mile.
In reply to jkarran:
I am prepared to be corrected but I think the Widdop and Brimham 'chips' were by the same guy (well except on Black Chipper and Birch Tree Wall!). No so sure about any examples at Almscliff and Wimberry though!
A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
Chris
>
>
> And Widdop and Almscliff and Brimham and Wimberry and the rest? Busy chap! It appears the shameless manufacturing of routes has in the past been much more widely acceptable than it is today.
>
>
> And Widdop and Almscliff and Brimham and Wimberry and the rest? Busy chap! It appears the shameless manufacturing of routes has in the past been much more widely acceptable than it is today.
>
I am prepared to be corrected but I think the Widdop and Brimham 'chips' were by the same guy (well except on Black Chipper and Birch Tree Wall!). No so sure about any examples at Almscliff and Wimberry though!
>
On a different scale the subtle <cough> 'adjustment' of holds to make easier, more balanced routes has been going on for years, we can get all high and mighty about it now but the reality is it's resulted in a lot of routes people enjoy today without even noticing the chips. Maybe it shouldn't be condoned but it is a fact of life.>
A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs: 'Cheat' at Wilton 1?
In reply to Derek O: It's to do with, on the one hand, firmly discouraging this sort of thing, ie. if you're going to make it easier/safer for yourself to claim the glory, we're gonna make sure you get none, and on the other hand actually making a "natural" first ascent. Though in this case it'd be hard to say what constituted natural, as it'd be hard to say how much of a placement was there pre drilling, on how many of them, or even if there was anything at all, making it hard to know how much to fill.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Forgive ignorance, whats the story with these?
>
> A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
> A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
Forgive ignorance, whats the story with these?
In reply to Derek O:
What I think you're not appreciating is that many of the ethics and codes relevant to this thread may appear arbitrary and pointless to debate if you've not been climbing long, but historically they are important as they define the differences (or the 'rules', if you like) between each of the different climbing games that we have in this country.
One of the reasons UK climbing is special is that we do have a massive variety - not just in rock but in terms of ethical practices associated with it, which mean we can retain a strong adventure climbing tradition alongside the development of sport climbing in certain other areas. Perhaps have a read about the bolt wars in the past (not least on Cornish sea cliffs) and how resolving them with bolting agreements between the majority of climbers, has largely meant that the UK has a wealth of different types of climbing existing side by side. That is why it wouldn't be acceptable to just make the First and Last wall a sport climb, as you have suggested. That is why the chipping is being universally condemmed by both advocates of trad and sport climbing (and by the majority of people who enjoy both) - not because it basically reduces the route to sport climbing, but because it's been done unilaterally with a total lack of respect for the consensus.
One reason these arguments and incidents like this are important is that they are the climbing community's response to a total contravention of the bolting and ethical agreements that have painstakingly been set out and fought over. Cornish sea cliffs are a designated zone for adventure trad climbing, and chipping and manufacturing gear placements destroys the challenges which exist, and define the future development of one particular sphere of climbing.
Yes, I do think it's important that this is a big deal, and I think it would be a strong statement for someone to try to repair the damange and make a true FA of the wall in as close to as original state as possible. This gives the message that these tactics are unjustified and that challenges should be left to be overcome by talent, and that bringing them down to the level of the chipper detracts from their achievement and from climbing as a whole.
What I think you're not appreciating is that many of the ethics and codes relevant to this thread may appear arbitrary and pointless to debate if you've not been climbing long, but historically they are important as they define the differences (or the 'rules', if you like) between each of the different climbing games that we have in this country.
One of the reasons UK climbing is special is that we do have a massive variety - not just in rock but in terms of ethical practices associated with it, which mean we can retain a strong adventure climbing tradition alongside the development of sport climbing in certain other areas. Perhaps have a read about the bolt wars in the past (not least on Cornish sea cliffs) and how resolving them with bolting agreements between the majority of climbers, has largely meant that the UK has a wealth of different types of climbing existing side by side. That is why it wouldn't be acceptable to just make the First and Last wall a sport climb, as you have suggested. That is why the chipping is being universally condemmed by both advocates of trad and sport climbing (and by the majority of people who enjoy both) - not because it basically reduces the route to sport climbing, but because it's been done unilaterally with a total lack of respect for the consensus.
One reason these arguments and incidents like this are important is that they are the climbing community's response to a total contravention of the bolting and ethical agreements that have painstakingly been set out and fought over. Cornish sea cliffs are a designated zone for adventure trad climbing, and chipping and manufacturing gear placements destroys the challenges which exist, and define the future development of one particular sphere of climbing.
Yes, I do think it's important that this is a big deal, and I think it would be a strong statement for someone to try to repair the damange and make a true FA of the wall in as close to as original state as possible. This gives the message that these tactics are unjustified and that challenges should be left to be overcome by talent, and that bringing them down to the level of the chipper detracts from their achievement and from climbing as a whole.
In reply to Derek O: There was a debate about Norman Collie chipping a step in Moss Ghyll Grooves in 1900 - damn fine job he made of it too, as it happens. There was fury when 4 Germans banged pegs in Tryfan in the 1930s, because of exactly the same reason that there is anger today at the rock being altered to make a route safer. These debates are the reason why most of our crags haven't ended up like Les Gaillands, which IIRC had no bolts, chpped holds or bolt-ons at all 30 years ago, and today is indistinguishable from a climbing wall, with a corresponding elimination of the essence of what - for some of us - climbing is about.
In reply to Will Hunt:
I don't think it was.
One of the early guidebooks mentions that Ferdinand (Severe) was previously a much better VS (would be a lot harder than that with modern grading!) before it was chipped by persons unknown.
> It was, however, done under the ethics of the time
I don't think it was.
One of the early guidebooks mentions that Ferdinand (Severe) was previously a much better VS (would be a lot harder than that with modern grading!) before it was chipped by persons unknown.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I'll have to check my guidebooks but I think the Widdop and at least some of the Ilkley chipping was done decades earlier.
At least some of the Black Rocks works certainly was.
I'll have to check my guidebooks but I think the Widdop and at least some of the Ilkley chipping was done decades earlier.
At least some of the Black Rocks works certainly was.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
I agree!
>
it would be a strong statement for someone to try to repair the damange and make a true FA of the wall in as close to as original state as possible. I agree!
In reply to Toreador:
Quite possible, I am a long way away from my library - so mostly spouting hot air!
Chris
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> I'll have to check my guidebooks but I think the Widdop and at least some of the Ilkley chipping was done decades earlier.
> At least some of the Black Rocks works certainly was.
> I'll have to check my guidebooks but I think the Widdop and at least some of the Ilkley chipping was done decades earlier.
> At least some of the Black Rocks works certainly was.
Quite possible, I am a long way away from my library - so mostly spouting hot air!
Chris
In reply to UKC News:
All ethics and blame aside (if that were possible), it's not a sheet of immaculate Cornish granite. It's typically crumbly Lands End wall that has been heavily 'cleaned' and prepared. Frankly it's an ugly pile - from what I can see on the photo, obviously. So Dave Garnett's (and others?)suggestion that the holes are filled in and the 'route' ignored by future guidebook writers until such time that it gets an ascent that meets everyone's approval, would result in no great loss to the climbing community. However, I do think the guilty should be found, if only to try and prevent them (him/her) from future acts.
Jon de Montjoye
Land of cheese and monkeys.
All ethics and blame aside (if that were possible), it's not a sheet of immaculate Cornish granite. It's typically crumbly Lands End wall that has been heavily 'cleaned' and prepared. Frankly it's an ugly pile - from what I can see on the photo, obviously. So Dave Garnett's (and others?)suggestion that the holes are filled in and the 'route' ignored by future guidebook writers until such time that it gets an ascent that meets everyone's approval, would result in no great loss to the climbing community. However, I do think the guilty should be found, if only to try and prevent them (him/her) from future acts.
Jon de Montjoye
Land of cheese and monkeys.
In reply to jon:
A proactive approach will always be difficult to implement.
When did you move to the Peaks?
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> However, I do think the guilty should be found, if only to try and prevent them (him/her) from future acts.
>
> However, I do think the guilty should be found, if only to try and prevent them (him/her) from future acts.
A proactive approach will always be difficult to implement.
> Jon de Montjoye
> Land of cheese and monkeys.
> Land of cheese and monkeys.
When did you move to the Peaks?
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
As an aside, I remember when Livesey was caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey, a great letter or article appeared somewhere (dredging memory here...) which contained the immortal words 'nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...'
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
>
> A proactive approach will always be difficult to implement.
>
> [...]
>
>
If the person responsible just came forward and said 'OK, it's a fair cop...' and asked for ten other similar acts to be taken into consideration, then they would be seen to be manning (womaning, perhaps) up and would be thought of in a slightly better light by the climbing community. The huge weight of trying to conceal the truth would also be a burden lifted from their shoulders. It's not as if they are going to be shot at dawn, is it? > [...]
>
> A proactive approach will always be difficult to implement.
>
> [...]
>
>
As an aside, I remember when Livesey was caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey, a great letter or article appeared somewhere (dredging memory here...) which contained the immortal words 'nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...'
In reply to jon:
A Truth and Reconciliation Panel for climbers?
M. Edwards has stopped posting, he was very active until this thread appeared
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=70642
A Truth and Reconciliation Panel for climbers?
M. Edwards has stopped posting, he was very active until this thread appeared
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=70642
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Can someone please tell me what happened to Downhill Racer etc, or tell me where I can find out for myself?
Can someone please tell me what happened to Downhill Racer etc, or tell me where I can find out for myself?
In reply to Derek O:
I think the words used at the time were 'a wire brush made with six inch nails'. But that was thirty odd years ago.
I think the words used at the time were 'a wire brush made with six inch nails'. But that was thirty odd years ago.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Well, there are plenty of examples, surely, starting with Moss Gill Grooves on Scafell and proceeding through Rigor Mortis at - er, wherever the hell Rigor Mortis is - to Das Kapital on - blimey, I really must go to the Lakes more often, that crag in Thirlmere; is it another Raven? And no doubt many others.
But then there's been a lot of wife-beating in the past. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
jcm
Well, there are plenty of examples, surely, starting with Moss Gill Grooves on Scafell and proceeding through Rigor Mortis at - er, wherever the hell Rigor Mortis is - to Das Kapital on - blimey, I really must go to the Lakes more often, that crag in Thirlmere; is it another Raven? And no doubt many others.
But then there's been a lot of wife-beating in the past. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
jcm
In reply to Derek O:
According to one side: "Cleaned with a wire brush"
According to the other side: "Cleaned with a wire brush with 6 inch nails for wires"
There were a few "improvements" elsewhere as well - in the Lakes Nagasaki Grooves and Das Kapital spring to mind - but the most blatent was the upper pitch of Claws at Kilnsey - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=12481
ALC
According to one side: "Cleaned with a wire brush"
According to the other side: "Cleaned with a wire brush with 6 inch nails for wires"
There were a few "improvements" elsewhere as well - in the Lakes Nagasaki Grooves and Das Kapital spring to mind - but the most blatent was the upper pitch of Claws at Kilnsey - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=12481
ALC
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Truth and Reconciliation would make for a good name if he filled in the slots and re-led it
disclaimer: i'm not actually saying he did drill it, just that, if he had, and he fixed it and reclimbed it, T & R would be a good name...
Toby Jackson in the British Alps
> (In reply to jon)
>
> A Truth and Reconciliation Panel for climbers?
>
>
> A Truth and Reconciliation Panel for climbers?
>
Truth and Reconciliation would make for a good name if he filled in the slots and re-led it
disclaimer: i'm not actually saying he did drill it, just that, if he had, and he fixed it and reclimbed it, T & R would be a good name...
Toby Jackson in the British Alps
In reply to jon:
>caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey
Caught out?! Didn't he call his route Claws? Or are you referring to some catching-out before that.
jcm
>caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey
Caught out?! Didn't he call his route Claws? Or are you referring to some catching-out before that.
jcm
In reply to jon:
Yes, and after his FA of Downhill Racer he was described as 'the Michael Angelo of British rock' in one of the mags (Crags I think)
>
> As an aside, I remember when Livesey was caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey, a great letter or article appeared somewhere (dredging memory here...) which contained the immortal words 'nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...'
> As an aside, I remember when Livesey was caught out after his chipping at Kilnsey, a great letter or article appeared somewhere (dredging memory here...) which contained the immortal words 'nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...'
Yes, and after his FA of Downhill Racer he was described as 'the Michael Angelo of British rock' in one of the mags (Crags I think)
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That's the one, but if you remember, he wouldn't let his second follow the pitch, saying that he wanted the route to be HIS experience - clearly not wanting to let the cat out of the bag. It wasn't until the second ascent that the neat line of chipped holds was discovered. I did the route some time afterwards, and there was no effort on his part to disguise his handywork. A series of rectangular slots, just wide enough for four fingers!
That's the one, but if you remember, he wouldn't let his second follow the pitch, saying that he wanted the route to be HIS experience - clearly not wanting to let the cat out of the bag. It wasn't until the second ascent that the neat line of chipped holds was discovered. I did the route some time afterwards, and there was no effort on his part to disguise his handywork. A series of rectangular slots, just wide enough for four fingers!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Actually, the chipping was on Moss Ghyll by Norman Collie, not Moss Ghyll Grooves.
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
>
> Well, there are plenty of examples, surely, starting with Moss Gill Grooves on Scafell and proceeding through Rigor Mortis at - er, wherever the hell Rigor Mortis is - to Das Kapital on - blimey, I really must go to the Lakes more often, that crag in Thirlmere; is it another Raven? And no doubt many others.
>
> Well, there are plenty of examples, surely, starting with Moss Gill Grooves on Scafell and proceeding through Rigor Mortis at - er, wherever the hell Rigor Mortis is - to Das Kapital on - blimey, I really must go to the Lakes more often, that crag in Thirlmere; is it another Raven? And no doubt many others.
Actually, the chipping was on Moss Ghyll by Norman Collie, not Moss Ghyll Grooves.
In reply to Tobias at Home:
'Course not, nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...
> (In reply to lowersharpnose)
> [...]
>
>
>
> disclaimer: i'm not actually saying he did drill it, just that, if he had, and he fixed it and reclimbed it, T & R would be a good name...
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> disclaimer: i'm not actually saying he did drill it, just that, if he had, and he fixed it and reclimbed it, T & R would be a good name...
>
>
'Course not, nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...
In reply to gallam1:
true....at least the Menestrals were a) good at it and b) acknowledged it.
> (In reply to Will Hunt)
> [...]
>
> There has been some very artful chipping in the past, both deliberate and accidental....La Rose et le Vampire at Buoux
> [...]
>
> There has been some very artful chipping in the past, both deliberate and accidental....La Rose et le Vampire at Buoux
true....at least the Menestrals were a) good at it and b) acknowledged it.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I read a suggestion somewhere that it wasn't actually chipping, but cleaning earth/loose rock out of an existing weakness. Can't remember where, but it made sense - I can't imagine having much success trying to create a new hold in solid rock using an ice axe.
> Actually, the chipping was on Moss Ghyll by Norman Collie, not Moss Ghyll Grooves.
I read a suggestion somewhere that it wasn't actually chipping, but cleaning earth/loose rock out of an existing weakness. Can't remember where, but it made sense - I can't imagine having much success trying to create a new hold in solid rock using an ice axe.
In reply to Derek O:
It's notable that Livesey's admission that he'd "improved" the holds on Downhill Racer is still noted and discussed 33 years later.
> Can someone please tell me what happened to Downhill Racer etc
It's notable that Livesey's admission that he'd "improved" the holds on Downhill Racer is still noted and discussed 33 years later.
In reply to Toreador:
No, no, no. It was chipping on a massive scale - a huge hold made with a heavy ice axe. Will look up now, and report back.
No, no, no. It was chipping on a massive scale - a huge hold made with a heavy ice axe. Will look up now, and report back.
In reply to Toreador:
Here it is - the very first recorded incident of a chipped hold on British rock, in 1892. Interestingly Collie was not entirely happy about it, and acknowledged openly that he had 'sinned':
"... Hastings' ice axe was next brought into requisition, and what followed I have no doubt will be severely criticised by more orthodox mountaineers than ourselves. As it was my suggestion I must take the blame. Peccavi! I hacked a step in the rock. - and it was very hard work."
Peccavi is the one thing we never hear anyone say nowadays ...
Here it is - the very first recorded incident of a chipped hold on British rock, in 1892. Interestingly Collie was not entirely happy about it, and acknowledged openly that he had 'sinned':
"... Hastings' ice axe was next brought into requisition, and what followed I have no doubt will be severely criticised by more orthodox mountaineers than ourselves. As it was my suggestion I must take the blame. Peccavi! I hacked a step in the rock. - and it was very hard work."
Peccavi is the one thing we never hear anyone say nowadays ...
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Maybe Mark could use Peccavi as the name for his next new route?
Neil
Maybe Mark could use Peccavi as the name for his next new route?
Neil
In reply to Neil Foster:
Nice one, yes! It would at least have people scrabbling for their dictionaries and history books
Nice one, yes! It would at least have people scrabbling for their dictionaries and history books
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Except when recounting General Napier's joke.
> Peccavi is the one thing we never hear anyone say nowadays ...
Except when recounting General Napier's joke.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Though, even better, it may have had a double meaning. Unfortunately, the pun (with its double meaning) seems to have been invented in a Punch cartoon, rather than having been a genuine telegram. http://www.peccavi.com/
> I've just done a Google on that and see that it was a pun "I have Sindh"
Though, even better, it may have had a double meaning. Unfortunately, the pun (with its double meaning) seems to have been invented in a Punch cartoon, rather than having been a genuine telegram. http://www.peccavi.com/
In reply to UKC News:
I haven't added anything to this topic because I don't know enough about the route or the individuals involved...but, the scenario presented by the news article makes me want to ask some questions.
I'm going to assume that each of the parties involved has conctributed the truth to the article - i.e. Mark Edwards led the route on much worse gear, and did not have anything to do with drilling the slots, and Nic Sellars repeated the route and downgraded it due to the slots being drilled in the intervening time.
Assuming this is the truth, then it requires a 3rd person to be involved, who presumably knew about Mark's first ascent (I'd guess not a whole lot of people did) and wanted to do the second ascent so much that the secretly went out and retre-drilled the route to improve the gear so they could lead it. This person also managed to keep their ascent secret, so no-one knew about the damage to the route until Nic Sellars returned to it.
I wonder if Mark Edwards or any other local climbers have any idea of the identity of this shadowy character? It'd seem surprising if no-one involved in the local scene knew who it was.
I haven't added anything to this topic because I don't know enough about the route or the individuals involved...but, the scenario presented by the news article makes me want to ask some questions.
I'm going to assume that each of the parties involved has conctributed the truth to the article - i.e. Mark Edwards led the route on much worse gear, and did not have anything to do with drilling the slots, and Nic Sellars repeated the route and downgraded it due to the slots being drilled in the intervening time.
Assuming this is the truth, then it requires a 3rd person to be involved, who presumably knew about Mark's first ascent (I'd guess not a whole lot of people did) and wanted to do the second ascent so much that the secretly went out and retre-drilled the route to improve the gear so they could lead it. This person also managed to keep their ascent secret, so no-one knew about the damage to the route until Nic Sellars returned to it.
I wonder if Mark Edwards or any other local climbers have any idea of the identity of this shadowy character? It'd seem surprising if no-one involved in the local scene knew who it was.
In reply to Robo:
I wonder if Mark Edwards or any other local climbers have any idea of the identity of this shadowy character? It'd seem surprising if no-one involved in the local scene knew who it was.
Have you considered the possibility that this "shadowy character", who seems hell-bent on ruining Edwards' reputation by repeatedly chipping, drilling and manufacturing holds on his routes after the first ascents, and has been doing so for years...MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY EXIST?
> (In reply to UKC News)
I wonder if Mark Edwards or any other local climbers have any idea of the identity of this shadowy character? It'd seem surprising if no-one involved in the local scene knew who it was.
Have you considered the possibility that this "shadowy character", who seems hell-bent on ruining Edwards' reputation by repeatedly chipping, drilling and manufacturing holds on his routes after the first ascents, and has been doing so for years...MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY EXIST?
In reply to UKC News: I feel that much of the criticism that ME is gettng here is unwarented. He has ceased placing bolts and drilling peg placements for his new routes in cornwall. For this we should be grateful and not nit-pick over the odd drilled cam slot. He also seems to be retro-claiming other people's routes a lot less. ME obviously has a lot of naked talent and rightly enjoys exhibiting his prowess to us (generally inferior) locals.
chris griffiths
chris griffiths
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Where is this admission other than he wire brushed it, normal tactics at the time, which I know to be true.
> (In reply to Derek O)
>
> [...]
>
> It's notable that Livesey's admission that he'd "improved" the holds on Downhill Racer is still noted and discussed 33 years later.
>
> [...]
>
> It's notable that Livesey's admission that he'd "improved" the holds on Downhill Racer is still noted and discussed 33 years later.
Where is this admission other than he wire brushed it, normal tactics at the time, which I know to be true.
In reply to chris.griffiths: if the camplacements are to fit all the same sized BD c3 cam, then could any shop suggest who may have bought so many of the same size. jsu a thought. w
In reply to chris.griffiths:
I genuinely can't 'get' the tone of this message - is it for real or just immensely sarcastic?
> (In reply to UKC News) I feel that much of the criticism that ME is gettng here is unwarented. He has ceased placing bolts and drilling peg placements for his new routes in cornwall. For this we should be grateful and not nit-pick over the odd drilled cam slot. He also seems to be retro-claiming other people's routes a lot less. ME obviously has a lot of naked talent and rightly enjoys exhibiting his prowess to us (generally inferior) locals.
>
> chris griffiths
>
> chris griffiths
I genuinely can't 'get' the tone of this message - is it for real or just immensely sarcastic?
In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al, I was going by this sentence "It took a long time for Pete Livesey to admit chipping holds on Downhill Racer - initially he claimed he had cleaned it with a wire brush." http://www.planetfear.com/articles/10_Froggatt_477.html I don't know the original source for this, bit before my time!
> Where is this admission other than he wire brushed it, normal tactics at the time, which I know to be true.
Hi Al, I was going by this sentence "It took a long time for Pete Livesey to admit chipping holds on Downhill Racer - initially he claimed he had cleaned it with a wire brush." http://www.planetfear.com/articles/10_Froggatt_477.html I don't know the original source for this, bit before my time!
In reply to chris.griffiths:
You have obviosly not seen the youtube video of him climbing an "8b+".there a link to it on ukb,well I've never seen such an abortion of style.plus the route does not look that grade unless there is a v9 section missed out
> ME obviously has a lot of naked talent and rightly enjoys exhibiting his prowess to us (generally inferior) locals.
>
> chris griffiths
>
> chris griffiths
You have obviosly not seen the youtube video of him climbing an "8b+".there a link to it on ukb,well I've never seen such an abortion of style.plus the route does not look that grade unless there is a v9 section missed out
In reply to wiwwim:
Err no. Of course not.
Err no. Of course not.
In reply to mark s:
I think you are entirely missing the context of chris's post.
> (In reply to chris.griffiths)
> [...]
>
> You have obviosly not seen the youtube video of him climbing an "8b+".there a link to it on ukb,well I've never seen such an abortion of style.plus the route does not look that grade unless there is a v9 section missed out
> [...]
>
> You have obviosly not seen the youtube video of him climbing an "8b+".there a link to it on ukb,well I've never seen such an abortion of style.plus the route does not look that grade unless there is a v9 section missed out
I think you are entirely missing the context of chris's post.
In reply to Gorilla:
What as in 'Is that a chisel in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?'
> I think you are entirely missing the context of chris's post.
What as in 'Is that a chisel in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?'
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I was the news editor on Crags that first reported on Downhill Racer, Birtles said that Pete's wire brush must have had 6 inch nails in it. So Pete asked me to second him on the second ascent and make my own mind up. My opinion was that it was no more than normal wire brushing, acceptable in those days, I reported this back in the mag, hence my interest in when he came out and said he chipped it?.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> [...]
>
> Hi Al, I was going by this sentence "It took a long time for Pete Livesey to admit chipping holds on Downhill Racer - initially he claimed he had cleaned it with a wire brush." http://www.planetfear.com/articles/10_Froggatt_477.html I don't know the original source for this, bit before my time!
>
> [...]
>
> Hi Al, I was going by this sentence "It took a long time for Pete Livesey to admit chipping holds on Downhill Racer - initially he claimed he had cleaned it with a wire brush." http://www.planetfear.com/articles/10_Froggatt_477.html I don't know the original source for this, bit before my time!
I was the news editor on Crags that first reported on Downhill Racer, Birtles said that Pete's wire brush must have had 6 inch nails in it. So Pete asked me to second him on the second ascent and make my own mind up. My opinion was that it was no more than normal wire brushing, acceptable in those days, I reported this back in the mag, hence my interest in when he came out and said he chipped it?.
In reply to mark s:
This one?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=198
How hard is Monster Munch thought to be?
This one?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=198
How hard is Monster Munch thought to be?
In reply to mark s:
For those that cannot find it, this is the link:
youtube.com/watch?v=-HNp7mh5LeM&
It would be interesting to know if anyone has repeated/worked this.
For those that cannot find it, this is the link:
youtube.com/watch?v=-HNp7mh5LeM&
It would be interesting to know if anyone has repeated/worked this.
In reply to gallam1: Looks 7c max to me.
In reply to Al Evans:
I remember that when this came up on here a few years ago Mick Ryan said he had a tape of an interview with Livesey in which Livesey said a few interesting things about Downhill Racer, chipping and heavy wire brushing in general. MR might have been teasing of course, but could be worth prodding him.
I remember that when this came up on here a few years ago Mick Ryan said he had a tape of an interview with Livesey in which Livesey said a few interesting things about Downhill Racer, chipping and heavy wire brushing in general. MR might have been teasing of course, but could be worth prodding him.
I remember an interview with Livesey not that long ago, in which he said: "I chipped buckets on the Gordale Trip, but nothing on Downhill Racer." The precise wording has stuck in my mind for a few years. It would be odd if he was so up front about one chipfest and still denied another.
In reply to simoninger: Having done it so soon after the first ascent (the second) I really don't think Downhill Racer was chipped in the modern sense of the word and think this myth should be put to bed.
stunning that a thread about climbing is one of the longest on UKC at the moment. Usually it's a religion one.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
For what it's worth they're both in Thirlmere, Rigor Mortis at Castle Rock of Triermain, Das Kapital at Raven Crag.
True.
In reply to Will:
Gibbon's Wall in Ilkley Quarry has it's creator's name on it. Nice little chipped solo.
> through Rigor Mortis at - er, wherever the hell Rigor Mortis is - to Das Kapital on - blimey, I really must go to the Lakes more often, that crag in Thirlmere; is it another Raven?
For what it's worth they're both in Thirlmere, Rigor Mortis at Castle Rock of Triermain, Das Kapital at Raven Crag.
> But then there's been a lot of wife-beating in the past. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
True.
In reply to Will:
Gibbon's Wall in Ilkley Quarry has it's creator's name on it. Nice little chipped solo.
In reply to gallam1:
I would have thought loads of people would have been on Monster Munch. Carn Vellan has attracted quite a lot of local interest, one way and another.
jcm
I would have thought loads of people would have been on Monster Munch. Carn Vellan has attracted quite a lot of local interest, one way and another.
jcm
In reply to Robo:
ME's first ascent was in the mags, so not a huge secret.
After the same sequence of events on Red Rose, the Edwards line was that the route had been chipped after his ascent by 'local climbers out to discredit me'. I'd assume the same line would apply here; indeed ME seems to suggest as much in his reply to Mick's news story.
jcm
ME's first ascent was in the mags, so not a huge secret.
After the same sequence of events on Red Rose, the Edwards line was that the route had been chipped after his ascent by 'local climbers out to discredit me'. I'd assume the same line would apply here; indeed ME seems to suggest as much in his reply to Mick's news story.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
This is an incredible story. Are you seriously suggesting some local has been out with the drill (because drilling rather than chipping was what this story was about, wasn't it?) to discredit ME?
This is an incredible story. Are you seriously suggesting some local has been out with the drill (because drilling rather than chipping was what this story was about, wasn't it?) to discredit ME?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
That would go along with Mr Edwards' previous claims regarding previous routes of his.
That would go along with Mr Edwards' previous claims regarding previous routes of his.
In reply to UKC News: This thread seems to be wandering away from the point, which was The Edwards and cornish granite. I don't make a habit of posting because there is generally so much bollocks expounded but I must declare a bit of interest in this subject, Also there are so many of my old mates (Egg, Ripple, Al Evans +)joining in this one. Once I used to spend extended periods in Cornwall without anyone to climb with although I did team up with visitors from all over and climbed with once well known folks as John Sheard, Toni Carver and Richard Haszko, when I didnt meet anyone I would explore the small unknown crags which are all now in the guidebooks. I made the probable first ascent of a number of routes on my own which I never thought worth recording. I did a few more challenging things with a German mate, Richard Goedeke who was (and is) as avid a new route collector in Europe as GGibson here, or even the Edwards. He was chagrined to discover that I never sent the details of those in either (Carn Boel).
Some years later I had the occasion to talk to Roland and mentioned that
I might have done a few earlier ascents than his. I was pleased to see that he took this in good part... NOT!!
Perhaps he was upset because I saw him use aid on a route he had just done with Mark and when I asked what the nature of the move was he vehemently denied it. I was sorry to have given him back a bundle of stainless steel pegs I had found in the rocks,(short half tube channels, just right for
banging into drillholes)
I also became embroiled in a little argument he had with Mick Fowler, about who did the first ascent of Mercury.
On the other hand, I do believe that some of their routes are very fine
although I havn't done many of them and I have seen both of them on the rock on many occasions climbing very hard, and very well.
Then again there is the gossip from Spain. I've been to and climbed round
Finestrat and the feeling is that they did upset the locals.
Nothing new! I seem to recall RE upsetting everyone since his bolts on Cloggy.
29 Palms (Big E number big T number) at Sennen has just been repeated without the use of the 4 drilled holes by a Japanese child. His pro being
what appeared to be 4 RPs. The First and Last problem may eventually be treated in the same way. In the meantime what happens? If the slots are filled what might have been a more tricky or marginal placement before the chisel will be destroyed altogether. It still looks like a good route though.
Some years later I had the occasion to talk to Roland and mentioned that
I might have done a few earlier ascents than his. I was pleased to see that he took this in good part... NOT!!
Perhaps he was upset because I saw him use aid on a route he had just done with Mark and when I asked what the nature of the move was he vehemently denied it. I was sorry to have given him back a bundle of stainless steel pegs I had found in the rocks,(short half tube channels, just right for
banging into drillholes)
I also became embroiled in a little argument he had with Mick Fowler, about who did the first ascent of Mercury.
On the other hand, I do believe that some of their routes are very fine
although I havn't done many of them and I have seen both of them on the rock on many occasions climbing very hard, and very well.
Then again there is the gossip from Spain. I've been to and climbed round
Finestrat and the feeling is that they did upset the locals.
Nothing new! I seem to recall RE upsetting everyone since his bolts on Cloggy.
29 Palms (Big E number big T number) at Sennen has just been repeated without the use of the 4 drilled holes by a Japanese child. His pro being
what appeared to be 4 RPs. The First and Last problem may eventually be treated in the same way. In the meantime what happens? If the slots are filled what might have been a more tricky or marginal placement before the chisel will be destroyed altogether. It still looks like a good route though.
In reply to shaker: hi shaker - good to hear you are still alive (I was sure you were dead). And good to hear you are getting back on topic - which is - what should the wider climbing community do if (just for example) some (highly talented) climbers - moved to Froggat and put (a lot of) bolts in or drilled a lot of holes for pegs or wrote a guide book listing just their routes or chipped holds or drilled slots for C3 cams (there are more at "Stanage" too) or called themselves Mavis (on UKC at least) or refused to wear regulation climbing clothing or called all their routes George Is Wonderful or scared away visiting climbers or pretended to be green when they were really pink and grey or .....?
In reply to chris.griffiths:
excellent thread this. not contributed much, as i dont really have much to add, but some thought provoking and measured contributions from people that clearly know what they are talking about,
cheers
gregor
excellent thread this. not contributed much, as i dont really have much to add, but some thought provoking and measured contributions from people that clearly know what they are talking about,
cheers
gregor
In reply to shaker:
Great effort but I wonder if he used the two holds that had been 'enhanced' with a drill tip?
Chris
>
> 29 Palms (Big E number big T number) at Sennen has just been repeated without the use of the 4 drilled holes by a Japanese child. His pro being
> what appeared to be 4 RPs.
> 29 Palms (Big E number big T number) at Sennen has just been repeated without the use of the 4 drilled holes by a Japanese child. His pro being
> what appeared to be 4 RPs.
Great effort but I wonder if he used the two holds that had been 'enhanced' with a drill tip?
Chris
In reply to UKC News: On a practical note, no one apart from presumably ME knows what the holes were like pre-drilling so returning it to its pre-drilled state would be very difficult.
In reply to Chris H: ...or the phantom driller of course!
In reply to UKC News:
As an aside, I was down that way recently and it looked like there had been a big collapse around about the area of the HVS 'The Prodigal's Return'.
Can't be sure exactly, but certainly it was between Cormorant Promontary and the diff descent for World's End/Zawn Face Route etc..
As an aside, I was down that way recently and it looked like there had been a big collapse around about the area of the HVS 'The Prodigal's Return'.
Can't be sure exactly, but certainly it was between Cormorant Promontary and the diff descent for World's End/Zawn Face Route etc..
In reply to tony:
Blimey, doesn't time fly. It's more what the earlier poster that jcm replied to - Jamei Bankhead - thought, and he agreed with the gist of my argument (see his post at 21.33 Tue on this thread) that a "new" E10 even in 2007, would be reasonably newsworthy, as there are not that many of them.
Think we probably both thought Rhapsody was more recent...
Anyway, this is a side issue, and not that relevant, other than that there appears to be an extra E10 (first ascent by Mark Edwards) that possibly a lot of people didn't know existed...
> By 'at that point in time', do you mean 2007? In which case, E10 wasn't the hardest grade - Rhapsody was graded E11 in April 06.
Blimey, doesn't time fly. It's more what the earlier poster that jcm replied to - Jamei Bankhead - thought, and he agreed with the gist of my argument (see his post at 21.33 Tue on this thread) that a "new" E10 even in 2007, would be reasonably newsworthy, as there are not that many of them.
Think we probably both thought Rhapsody was more recent...
Anyway, this is a side issue, and not that relevant, other than that there appears to be an extra E10 (first ascent by Mark Edwards) that possibly a lot of people didn't know existed...
In reply to UKC News: Do you think there will be a "Mark Edwards is a legend" page on Facebook?
In reply to shaker:
Like you I've followed this thread with both interest and sadness.
As author of the '88 CC guide to North Devon and Cornwall I contacted Rowland over the anomaly of the FA of Mercury Direct. He assured me that he beat Mick to it by a week (if I remember correctly) and showed me his diary entry. I had to accept that as evidence, but I subsequently learned (after publication) from other local activists operating at Gowla including the late Rowland Perriment, that they had witnessed RE aid climbing the route cleaning as he went on that date, before traversing right out of the groove to a stance, whereas Mick climbed the groove in its entirety encountering loose rock only in the upper half.
Whoever is responsible for this latest act of vandalism on Cornish granite has a real problem. I just wish they would take their drills, chisels and warped egos to somewhere more popular like Stanage or the Cromlech and get to work in full view of everyone: they might find a rough cure for this strange obsession with improving the rock.
Like you I've followed this thread with both interest and sadness.
As author of the '88 CC guide to North Devon and Cornwall I contacted Rowland over the anomaly of the FA of Mercury Direct. He assured me that he beat Mick to it by a week (if I remember correctly) and showed me his diary entry. I had to accept that as evidence, but I subsequently learned (after publication) from other local activists operating at Gowla including the late Rowland Perriment, that they had witnessed RE aid climbing the route cleaning as he went on that date, before traversing right out of the groove to a stance, whereas Mick climbed the groove in its entirety encountering loose rock only in the upper half.
Whoever is responsible for this latest act of vandalism on Cornish granite has a real problem. I just wish they would take their drills, chisels and warped egos to somewhere more popular like Stanage or the Cromlech and get to work in full view of everyone: they might find a rough cure for this strange obsession with improving the rock.
In reply to Al Evans:
It was naughty of Peter to do that but I do think that the climbing community is just not the same without Pete L being around anymore.
Graeme
It was naughty of Peter to do that but I do think that the climbing community is just not the same without Pete L being around anymore.
Graeme
In reply to grizz:
Al's point was that the whole thing was wildly exaggerated. This was nothing like the wholesale manufacture of holds and drilled slots such as is being discussed on this thread. The crucial holds on DHR are still very small, and I doubt if anybody doing the route now has any inkling that there was ever any controversy. There is far worse 'damage' now on any famous boulder in the Peak that you care to name.
Al's point was that the whole thing was wildly exaggerated. This was nothing like the wholesale manufacture of holds and drilled slots such as is being discussed on this thread. The crucial holds on DHR are still very small, and I doubt if anybody doing the route now has any inkling that there was ever any controversy. There is far worse 'damage' now on any famous boulder in the Peak that you care to name.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I didn't know that there were two chipped holds as well. Do you know that the Japanese star knew that? Whatever, you cannot take anything away from his achievement. He made a deliberate choice to use only alternative protection to the holes but in the end when controveries and history have faded any climber is is going to climb on what is there.
I went to Harrisons Rocks for the first time in many years on Sunday and I was horrified to see the state of 'What Crisis" which was originally an aid route "crisis" which I put up about 1955. It was very precarious aid because the crucial placement to get on to the wall was a cut down soft steel blade in a thin seam. I have the photos. The second ascensionist drilled ahole an it has now grown to a chalkplastered fingerpocket. The
second placement was a stack of sorts. This is now also a finger pocket.
The free route is doubtless an achievement of modern technique and strength and is far harder than anything I have ever managed but it looks disgusting.
Aesthetically this seems to be actually the reverse of the Cornish situation and generally, across the country the freeing of routes prevoiusly aided has given us many classics, so it all comes down to yet another 'progression". It's something to get that kid back here for.
Our history is plagued with ambitous climber impatient to wait for someone better to come along. We've got to live with it.
> (In reply to shaker)
> [...]
>
> Great effort but I wonder if he used the two holds that had been 'enhanced' with a drill tip?
>
>
> Chris
> [...]
>
> Great effort but I wonder if he used the two holds that had been 'enhanced' with a drill tip?
>
>
> Chris
I didn't know that there were two chipped holds as well. Do you know that the Japanese star knew that? Whatever, you cannot take anything away from his achievement. He made a deliberate choice to use only alternative protection to the holes but in the end when controveries and history have faded any climber is is going to climb on what is there.
I went to Harrisons Rocks for the first time in many years on Sunday and I was horrified to see the state of 'What Crisis" which was originally an aid route "crisis" which I put up about 1955. It was very precarious aid because the crucial placement to get on to the wall was a cut down soft steel blade in a thin seam. I have the photos. The second ascensionist drilled ahole an it has now grown to a chalkplastered fingerpocket. The
second placement was a stack of sorts. This is now also a finger pocket.
The free route is doubtless an achievement of modern technique and strength and is far harder than anything I have ever managed but it looks disgusting.
Aesthetically this seems to be actually the reverse of the Cornish situation and generally, across the country the freeing of routes prevoiusly aided has given us many classics, so it all comes down to yet another 'progression". It's something to get that kid back here for.
Our history is plagued with ambitous climber impatient to wait for someone better to come along. We've got to live with it.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Wasn't Nagasaki Grooves 'improved' too, or am I thinking of something else?
Wasn't Nagasaki Grooves 'improved' too, or am I thinking of something else?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
> (In reply to Chris H)
>
> The Phantom Driller. Another route name, surely.
>
> The Phantom Driller. Another route name, surely.
Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
In reply to shaker:
There are/were two subtle bit of drilling, a side-pull in a tiny seam, and a flattie where a blunt rib had been drilled away. It would be interesting to see how they had weathered these 21 years!
Chris
>
>
> I didn't know that there were two chipped holds as well.
>
> I didn't know that there were two chipped holds as well.
There are/were two subtle bit of drilling, a side-pull in a tiny seam, and a flattie where a blunt rib had been drilled away. It would be interesting to see how they had weathered these 21 years!
Chris
In reply to liz j:
Ooh, nicely done! Bad, though!
;0)
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
Ooh, nicely done! Bad, though!
;0)
In reply to UKC News:
It seems this story is just going to peter out with no new information. While I accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty and therefore that the burden of evidence is on the accuser to prove ME "guilty", this is nigh on impossible in this case.
I'm trying to be balanced, as I have no knowledge of the history of Cornish climbing and think taking into account previous accusations is potentially unfair and my bias the "jury" if you pardon the legal metaphor?
Would it be fair to say that unless at least one of the claimed 7 witnesses to ME's first ascent are identified and provide evidence to back him up, that his innocence seems unlikely?
It seems this story is just going to peter out with no new information. While I accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty and therefore that the burden of evidence is on the accuser to prove ME "guilty", this is nigh on impossible in this case.
I'm trying to be balanced, as I have no knowledge of the history of Cornish climbing and think taking into account previous accusations is potentially unfair and my bias the "jury" if you pardon the legal metaphor?
Would it be fair to say that unless at least one of the claimed 7 witnesses to ME's first ascent are identified and provide evidence to back him up, that his innocence seems unlikely?
In reply to Sargey: it seems to me that there are a lot of people, some with obvious grudges against the Edwards, who despite lack of evidence have already decided he is guilty
Hi Shaker great to hear your'e still with us , time you made a another foray down this way and we'll see if we can finish you off.as for the edwards saga this has been running longer than the mousetrap maybe it was colenel Mustard with a hammer in the first and last bar? egg
This is all very embarrasing for M Edwards. So many well respected climbers publically slandering him and his family. His silence on this thread when he has been such a frequent user of the forums in the recent past does not look good!
In reply to smollett: how about an ASBO?
In reply to wiwwim:
How about making him climb with Ripple when he's in the area that should slow him down. anon
> (In reply to smollett) how about an ASBO?
How about making him climb with Ripple when he's in the area that should slow him down. anon
In reply to Big Steve:
You come across as an apologist for him.
Sure, it's not "proven" - but for many (most?) of us, the persistent, widespread and accumulating circumstantial "evidence" (a long history of many climbers making allegations of poor ethical practice; a known penchant for drilling/non-natural gear; a demonstrated capacity for not being completely upfront and honest; etc.) and the lack of either a credible rationale for another explanation or strong and sound support regarding this particular "ascent", is convincing.
> (In reply to Sargey) it seems to me that there are a lot of people, some with obvious grudges against the Edwards, who despite lack of evidence have already decided he is guilty
You come across as an apologist for him.
Sure, it's not "proven" - but for many (most?) of us, the persistent, widespread and accumulating circumstantial "evidence" (a long history of many climbers making allegations of poor ethical practice; a known penchant for drilling/non-natural gear; a demonstrated capacity for not being completely upfront and honest; etc.) and the lack of either a credible rationale for another explanation or strong and sound support regarding this particular "ascent", is convincing.
It could be worse you know. I mean you gotta love the French style of climbing:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=146690
<La Balme de Thuy, France>
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=146690
<La Balme de Thuy, France>
In reply to liz j:
Well I'll invoke Godwins law and mention Hilti
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
Well I'll invoke Godwins law and mention Hilti
In reply to smollett:
I think that all depends on whether it turns out to be true.
> So many well respected climbers publically slandering him and his family.
I think that all depends on whether it turns out to be true.
In reply to RockArchivist:
Still slander though, innit?
No, not if true.
Still slander though, innit?
No, not if true.
In reply to RockArchivist:
It's not slander if it's true
"slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications."
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Still slander though, innit?
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Still slander though, innit?
It's not slander if it's true
"slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications."
In reply to Chris Craggs:
>
> A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
>
Green Death? > A couple of examples might be nice - assuming you don't mean Green Death, Oedipus and Downhill Racer - hardly routes for the masses?
>
In reply to RockArchivist:
Virtually the last 'hold' on the route, to access the final easy slab is a strange small dimple that is in just the 'right' place and exactly takes three finger-ends. It doesn't match the rock around it or any the holds below. Very neatly and discretely done mind!
Chris
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> [...]
> Green Death?
> [...]
> Green Death?
Virtually the last 'hold' on the route, to access the final easy slab is a strange small dimple that is in just the 'right' place and exactly takes three finger-ends. It doesn't match the rock around it or any the holds below. Very neatly and discretely done mind!
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
That's interesting
>
> Virtually the last 'hold' on the route, to access the final easy slab is a strange small dimple that is in just the 'right' place and exactly takes three finger-ends. It doesn't match the rock around it or any the holds below. Very neatly and discretely done mind!
> Virtually the last 'hold' on the route, to access the final easy slab is a strange small dimple that is in just the 'right' place and exactly takes three finger-ends. It doesn't match the rock around it or any the holds below. Very neatly and discretely done mind!
That's interesting
In reply to tim carruthers:
Gosh, no, the thought never even crossed my mind.
If you're right then that means that someone has not been honest!
I can't think of any of the individuals involved about which I'd suspect such a thing...
> (In reply to Robo)
> [...]
>
> Have you considered the possibility that this "shadowy character", who >seems hell-bent on ruining Edwards' reputation by repeatedly chipping, >drilling and manufacturing holds on his routes after the first ascents, >and has been doing so for years...MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY EXIST?
> [...]
>
> Have you considered the possibility that this "shadowy character", who >seems hell-bent on ruining Edwards' reputation by repeatedly chipping, >drilling and manufacturing holds on his routes after the first ascents, >and has been doing so for years...MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY EXIST?
Gosh, no, the thought never even crossed my mind.
If you're right then that means that someone has not been honest!
I can't think of any of the individuals involved about which I'd suspect such a thing...
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I spoke to Mike Owen last night. He told me the full story of the time you two went to do 29 Palms - laughed my head off.
E
I spoke to Mike Owen last night. He told me the full story of the time you two went to do 29 Palms - laughed my head off.
E
In reply to hdog76:
I climbed "Rowlands Promised Land" with Medwards, Redwards and Tom on the first ascent, page 254 in CB rockfax. Redwards fell off, but has still claim the ascent. I´m sure he has climbed the whole route, but not in one go and not on that day. Climbing by installments.
A new ethic! Instead of "red point" perhaps it should be called "red wards point".
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I did not see any cheating on new routes or any evidence of using aid when climbing new routes, on the contary i found Rowland climbed at an amazing level not just for his age but any age, his leads were bold and hard on adventurous routes, some very loose.
>
>> I did not see any cheating on new routes or any evidence of using aid when climbing new routes, on the contary i found Rowland climbed at an amazing level not just for his age but any age, his leads were bold and hard on adventurous routes, some very loose.
>
I climbed "Rowlands Promised Land" with Medwards, Redwards and Tom on the first ascent, page 254 in CB rockfax. Redwards fell off, but has still claim the ascent. I´m sure he has climbed the whole route, but not in one go and not on that day. Climbing by installments.
A new ethic! Instead of "red point" perhaps it should be called "red wards point".
In reply to Rich Mayfield:
The real question is, who's the least ethical?
Medwards
Redwards
or Jedward?
The real question is, who's the least ethical?
Medwards
Redwards
or Jedward?
In reply to Rich Mayfield:
Fair enough, I never saw any of that, can only comment on what i saw, well enjoyed the climbing in spain though so cant complain got to do huge amount of routes.
Fair enough, I never saw any of that, can only comment on what i saw, well enjoyed the climbing in spain though so cant complain got to do huge amount of routes.
In reply to hdog76:
x by - hdog76 ? on - 20 Feb 2010
In reply to w.pettet-smith:
Would be interesting to find out which way your pushing this, I have climbed with Mark and Rowland in the uk and spain I seconded both of them on new routes, both were exceptional climbers any one who can onsight E2/3 at 60+ is pretty amazing the routes i climbed with Rowland which most people will never get on were outstanding quality. Marks routes were hard pretty impressive and from what i observed a step above what local climbers could on sight. Forget the grade debates or contraversy they have climbed more routes than we could ever try and imagine let a lone climb.
This is only one of 3 threads you have ever posted on, are you a personal friend?
x by - hdog76 ? on - 20 Feb 2010
In reply to w.pettet-smith:
Would be interesting to find out which way your pushing this, I have climbed with Mark and Rowland in the uk and spain I seconded both of them on new routes, both were exceptional climbers any one who can onsight E2/3 at 60+ is pretty amazing the routes i climbed with Rowland which most people will never get on were outstanding quality. Marks routes were hard pretty impressive and from what i observed a step above what local climbers could on sight. Forget the grade debates or contraversy they have climbed more routes than we could ever try and imagine let a lone climb.
This is only one of 3 threads you have ever posted on, are you a personal friend?
In reply to Ziggy Stardust:
Bizarre comment considering this is the only thread you've posted on.
Are you a personal friend?
> (In reply to hdog76)
>
> x by - hdog76 ? on - 20 Feb 2010
> In reply to w.pettet-smith:
>
> This is only one of 3 threads you have ever posted on, are you a personal friend?
>
> x by - hdog76 ? on - 20 Feb 2010
> In reply to w.pettet-smith:
>
> This is only one of 3 threads you have ever posted on, are you a personal friend?
Bizarre comment considering this is the only thread you've posted on.
Are you a personal friend?
In reply to aln
I didnt do a good job of cut and pasted that bit above, not sure if it is clear that the glowing report was from hdog not me!
I had a login on here ages ago and it had expired so had to start again, I am not a friend of the Edwards no, I am wondering if hdog is?
I didnt do a good job of cut and pasted that bit above, not sure if it is clear that the glowing report was from hdog not me!
I had a login on here ages ago and it had expired so had to start again, I am not a friend of the Edwards no, I am wondering if hdog is?
In reply to Ziggy Stardust: Fair enough, my mistake.
In reply to the thread:
while i think the weight of evidence on the thread looks problematic for Mr Edwards, the reply to hdog76 does show part of the problem he has establishing his "innocence" if he didnt do it
if anyone posts being supportive of him, the suspicion is that they are a friend, and therefore the obvious implication is that they have a vested interest in backing him up, possibly by posting things that arent the truth
if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
cheers
gregor
while i think the weight of evidence on the thread looks problematic for Mr Edwards, the reply to hdog76 does show part of the problem he has establishing his "innocence" if he didnt do it
if anyone posts being supportive of him, the suspicion is that they are a friend, and therefore the obvious implication is that they have a vested interest in backing him up, possibly by posting things that arent the truth
if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
cheers
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Maybe it was the mysterious 7 wot chipped it?
http://www.ece.uc.edu/AppliedAI/SevenDwarfs.jpg
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
>
> if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
>
Maybe it was the mysterious 7 wot chipped it?
http://www.ece.uc.edu/AppliedAI/SevenDwarfs.jpg
In reply to Southern Man:
my moneys on the one second from the right. he looks a nasty bit of work...
my moneys on the one second from the right. he looks a nasty bit of work...
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Unless the mysterious 7 were actually hanging off his back then i doubt they'd have been able to tell the quality of the placements from below, he could have just drilled them on a previous occasion.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Prove someone else did it I guess?
> (In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll)
>
> so is there anything he could do to show he didnt do it?
>
> so is there anything he could do to show he didnt do it?
Prove someone else did it I guess?
In reply to UKC News:
well obviously if he used 5 evenly spaced cams then "he dun it" as he claimed they were drilled after his FA...right?
well obviously if he used 5 evenly spaced cams then "he dun it" as he claimed they were drilled after his FA...right?
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
True, doesn't exactly look like the sort of route you'd be hangng about driling on the lead!
True, doesn't exactly look like the sort of route you'd be hangng about driling on the lead!
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Considering some of the first hand accounts, particularly Eggs and the leeds '89 comp from the other channel, whatever it was would have to be pretty damn conclusive.
In reply to Southern Man:
outside of films, we dont even expect accused criminals to do that...!
i agree it doesnt look good for him at all. but in the event that he didnt do it, i dont see how he can ever establish that.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> Prove someone else did it I guess?
> [...]
>
> Prove someone else did it I guess?
outside of films, we dont even expect accused criminals to do that...!
i agree it doesnt look good for him at all. but in the event that he didnt do it, i dont see how he can ever establish that.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
outside of films, we dont even expect accused criminals to do that...!
The First and Last sounds like the a good place for a showdown though doesn't it!
outside of films, we dont even expect accused criminals to do that...!
The First and Last sounds like the a good place for a showdown though doesn't it!
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Relatively easily, I would have thought. 'When I led it I did it with X, Y and Z pro, and not a cam in sight. Messrs Tom, Dick and Harry etc, who some of you will know, saw me do it.' I'm not that emotionally involved TBH but I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt and STFU.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I notice that M.Edwards hasn't posted since this thread began. Since he's usually a frequent poster:
1. Either he's away from internet access and is unaware of this thread (which would be quite ironic).
2. Or he's gone into "hiding".
It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about the various allegations, though of course some will not believe him regardless of what he says.
If Mark is "guilty as charged" then what I don't understand is why he's been quite happy to admit drilled pegs/threads etc at other times, yet deny it this (and maybe other) times.
1. Either he's away from internet access and is unaware of this thread (which would be quite ironic).
2. Or he's gone into "hiding".
It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about the various allegations, though of course some will not believe him regardless of what he says.
If Mark is "guilty as charged" then what I don't understand is why he's been quite happy to admit drilled pegs/threads etc at other times, yet deny it this (and maybe other) times.
In reply to Michael Hood:
agreed, it doesnt look good. he could of course be avoiding the public flogging his reputation is taking here, believing, probably correctly, he wouldnt get much of a fair hearing
if it was me, i;d still come and set out my position at least to start with, on the thread
cheers
gregor
agreed, it doesnt look good. he could of course be avoiding the public flogging his reputation is taking here, believing, probably correctly, he wouldnt get much of a fair hearing
if it was me, i;d still come and set out my position at least to start with, on the thread
cheers
gregor
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
i think there's many that wouldnt be so easily persuaded as you Rob.
but then, many people who know a lot about it have posted and seem to have significant grounds to question him.
as sad situation, whatever the truth of the matter
i think there's many that wouldnt be so easily persuaded as you Rob.
but then, many people who know a lot about it have posted and seem to have significant grounds to question him.
as sad situation, whatever the truth of the matter
In reply to Southern Man:
indeed it does..!
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
> The First and Last sounds like the a good place for a showdown though doesn't it!
>
>
> The First and Last sounds like the a good place for a showdown though doesn't it!
indeed it does..!
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: There are a few areas that I think can be ignored:
1. RE on Resurrection; I don't think there's a huge gap between what Egg (so many posts up that I can't remember if it was him) saw and what RE reported (1 point aid + 2 rest points). If RE was on a rest point, tried the next move or two, came back and rested again, then that would still be 1 rest point even though it was 2 or more rests. Presumably when aid/rests are used on a "free" ascent, you end up spending far more time dangling around than actually free climbing. So if "Egg" looked up from the boulders every so often, he would tend to see RE on aid/rests and the impression would be that the route had been aided. Even Nigel's (?) "A1" remark might have been ironic if RE was doing loads of moves up, then back down to the aid/rest points but still only having 3 such points.
However the above "reconcilliation" becomes more difficult if "Egg" was just at the boulders but watching RE all the time or if he was completely sure that he saw RE using aid/rests at more than 3 positions on the wall.
2. When Mark was starting to climb hard, I don't believe there was anyone else down in Cornwall operating at that standard. So Mark (& Rowland) were doing hard new routes in a bit of a vacuum with nobody quickly checking their routes for difficulty, style etc. So Mark used technical grades a bit differently - cumulatively (like Ron did to start with) and some big numbers ensued. Also style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time. I believe Mark was pushing the ethics boundaries in Cornwall at this time but again in a bit of a vacuum except for reading about things like "The Cad" and Livesey's exploits. I also think that a lot of the drilled pegs/threads and initial pegs being replaced with more permanent gear was driven by the corrosion that occurs near the sea.
Eventually, other top climbers came and sampled the Edwards's routes so that valid comment about grades and style could be made. Also, local opposition to bolts on Cornish sea cliffs became established. I don't know if the Edward's still did "naughty things" in Cornwall after this but I'll bet most of it was before any local "ban" concensus.
3. The ENP argument - although the Edwards's undoubtedly pissed off some of the Spanish locals, the ENP was obviously an attempt to get close to "fixed" protection with i) a lower visible impact ii) a lower cost than having to equip all (many) routes with bolts. It didn't take off, but I can't see how it was worse than bolts, so the arguements about this seem to just be a load of hot air.
Having said all this, there do seem to be lots of incidents that can't be so easily explained away. I doubt anyone except the Edwards's will ever know the complete truth.
1. RE on Resurrection; I don't think there's a huge gap between what Egg (so many posts up that I can't remember if it was him) saw and what RE reported (1 point aid + 2 rest points). If RE was on a rest point, tried the next move or two, came back and rested again, then that would still be 1 rest point even though it was 2 or more rests. Presumably when aid/rests are used on a "free" ascent, you end up spending far more time dangling around than actually free climbing. So if "Egg" looked up from the boulders every so often, he would tend to see RE on aid/rests and the impression would be that the route had been aided. Even Nigel's (?) "A1" remark might have been ironic if RE was doing loads of moves up, then back down to the aid/rest points but still only having 3 such points.
However the above "reconcilliation" becomes more difficult if "Egg" was just at the boulders but watching RE all the time or if he was completely sure that he saw RE using aid/rests at more than 3 positions on the wall.
2. When Mark was starting to climb hard, I don't believe there was anyone else down in Cornwall operating at that standard. So Mark (& Rowland) were doing hard new routes in a bit of a vacuum with nobody quickly checking their routes for difficulty, style etc. So Mark used technical grades a bit differently - cumulatively (like Ron did to start with) and some big numbers ensued. Also style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time. I believe Mark was pushing the ethics boundaries in Cornwall at this time but again in a bit of a vacuum except for reading about things like "The Cad" and Livesey's exploits. I also think that a lot of the drilled pegs/threads and initial pegs being replaced with more permanent gear was driven by the corrosion that occurs near the sea.
Eventually, other top climbers came and sampled the Edwards's routes so that valid comment about grades and style could be made. Also, local opposition to bolts on Cornish sea cliffs became established. I don't know if the Edward's still did "naughty things" in Cornwall after this but I'll bet most of it was before any local "ban" concensus.
3. The ENP argument - although the Edwards's undoubtedly pissed off some of the Spanish locals, the ENP was obviously an attempt to get close to "fixed" protection with i) a lower visible impact ii) a lower cost than having to equip all (many) routes with bolts. It didn't take off, but I can't see how it was worse than bolts, so the arguements about this seem to just be a load of hot air.
Having said all this, there do seem to be lots of incidents that can't be so easily explained away. I doubt anyone except the Edwards's will ever know the complete truth.
In reply to UKC News: I read this with much interest and dont feel I can really comment as will never operate at this kind of level. BUT I did recently walk down to look at Rewind at Carn Vellan, admittadly originaly done as a sport route and latter done as a trad route. I suppose that is similar to Head pointing in some way. But wow what a climb and something that must compare with the likes of stuff being down these days by the like of Dave Macleod. Controversial maybe!! but is that not allways the way at the top? But Rewind is trully amazing to be climbed free and something that I feel is well worth a look for all you travlling climbers down here when it rains.
In reply to Michael Hood:
thanks for that post, interesting read
i remember reading MarK Edwards discussing some controversial ascents with John Cox on a thread a few weeks ago, and he made essentially the point you make in point 2.
Its a shame he hasnt posted here to offer an explanation, as it was interesting reading his own account of the events and why he had taken that course of action
cheers
gregor
thanks for that post, interesting read
i remember reading MarK Edwards discussing some controversial ascents with John Cox on a thread a few weeks ago, and he made essentially the point you make in point 2.
Its a shame he hasnt posted here to offer an explanation, as it was interesting reading his own account of the events and why he had taken that course of action
cheers
gregor
In reply to UKC News:
To be fair, in this massive accusation/witch hunt/downright nasty thread, why the hell would Mark post?
Everyone seems to have the knives out already, and automatically doesn't believe him.
UKC and kneejerk reactions eh?
To be fair, in this massive accusation/witch hunt/downright nasty thread, why the hell would Mark post?
Everyone seems to have the knives out already, and automatically doesn't believe him.
UKC and kneejerk reactions eh?
In reply to Michael Hood:
"style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time" = "(about) 30 years ago, it was OK to chip and bolt to bag the ascent" ?
That last sentence is confusing.
I was always under the impression that bolts went into "trad" rock when there was no alternative protection and the climber was neither good enough to do the route without nor prepared to leave the route for better climbers.
You forgot:
4. The Chewbacca Defence: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid
>
> 2. When Mark was starting to climb hard, I don't believe there was anyone else down in Cornwall operating at that standard. So Mark (& Rowland) were doing hard new routes in a bit of a vacuum with nobody quickly checking their routes for difficulty, style etc. So Mark used technical grades a bit differently - cumulatively (like Ron did to start with) and some big numbers ensued. Also style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time. I believe Mark was pushing the ethics boundaries in Cornwall at this time but again in a bit of a vacuum except for reading about things like "The Cad" and Livesey's exploits. I also think that a lot of the drilled pegs/threads and initial pegs being replaced with more permanent gear was driven by the corrosion that occurs near the sea.
> 2. When Mark was starting to climb hard, I don't believe there was anyone else down in Cornwall operating at that standard. So Mark (& Rowland) were doing hard new routes in a bit of a vacuum with nobody quickly checking their routes for difficulty, style etc. So Mark used technical grades a bit differently - cumulatively (like Ron did to start with) and some big numbers ensued. Also style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time. I believe Mark was pushing the ethics boundaries in Cornwall at this time but again in a bit of a vacuum except for reading about things like "The Cad" and Livesey's exploits. I also think that a lot of the drilled pegs/threads and initial pegs being replaced with more permanent gear was driven by the corrosion that occurs near the sea.
"style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time" = "(about) 30 years ago, it was OK to chip and bolt to bag the ascent" ?
That last sentence is confusing.
I was always under the impression that bolts went into "trad" rock when there was no alternative protection and the climber was neither good enough to do the route without nor prepared to leave the route for better climbers.
>
> Eventually, other top climbers came and sampled the Edwards's routes so that valid comment about grades and style could be made. Also, local opposition to bolts on Cornish sea cliffs became established. I don't know if the Edward's still did "naughty things" in Cornwall after this but I'll bet most of it was before any local "ban" concensus.
>
= The Edwards were unaware that local climbers didn't want bolts?> Eventually, other top climbers came and sampled the Edwards's routes so that valid comment about grades and style could be made. Also, local opposition to bolts on Cornish sea cliffs became established. I don't know if the Edward's still did "naughty things" in Cornwall after this but I'll bet most of it was before any local "ban" concensus.
>
You forgot:
4. The Chewbacca Defence: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid
In reply to edwardwoodward:
Not saying it was ok to chip & bolt, just that these things were going on elsewhere by some of our top 70's climbers and the ethical boundaries around acceptable style of ascent were more in flux than they are nowadays.
Agreed, but it wasn't just the Edwards's who did this.
I'm sure that they must have been aware of other local climbers opinions, but it doesn't become a "rule" that most people would follow until there's some kind of consensus or forum (e.g. BMC SW meeting) where things are "decided".
Can't find that, please explain
> "style ethics were less well defined/accepted at the time" = "(about) 30 years ago, it was OK to chip and bolt to bag the ascent" ?
>
> That last sentence is confusing.
Quite likely >
> That last sentence is confusing.
Not saying it was ok to chip & bolt, just that these things were going on elsewhere by some of our top 70's climbers and the ethical boundaries around acceptable style of ascent were more in flux than they are nowadays.
> I was always under the impression that bolts went into "trad" rock when there was no alternative protection and the climber was neither good enough to do the route without nor prepared to leave the route for better climbers.
Agreed, but it wasn't just the Edwards's who did this.
> [...]
> = The Edwards were unaware that local climbers didn't want bolts?
>> = The Edwards were unaware that local climbers didn't want bolts?
I'm sure that they must have been aware of other local climbers opinions, but it doesn't become a "rule" that most people would follow until there's some kind of consensus or forum (e.g. BMC SW meeting) where things are "decided".
> You forgot:
> 4. The Chewbacca Defence: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid
> 4. The Chewbacca Defence: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid
Can't find that, please explain
In reply to Michael Hood:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=97...
> Can't find that, please explain
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=97...
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
He has though - in the original article - here it is for the thread - UKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
> (In reply to Michael Hood)
>
> agreed, it doesnt look good. he could of course be avoiding the public flogging his reputation is taking here, believing, probably correctly, he wouldnt get much of a fair hearing
>
> if it was me, i;d still come and set out my position at least to start with, on the thread
>
> cheers
> gregor
>
> agreed, it doesnt look good. he could of course be avoiding the public flogging his reputation is taking here, believing, probably correctly, he wouldnt get much of a fair hearing
>
> if it was me, i;d still come and set out my position at least to start with, on the thread
>
> cheers
> gregor
He has though - in the original article - here it is for the thread - UKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
Well at least one of them has. Daisy climber was there/holding the ropes (I think - I can't be bothered to trawl the threaad to confirm).
Also - to those of you seeking comment from M. Edwards, he has already commented in the original story. What else can he say?
I'm no apologist for him, I've never met him, and I've heard the stories and rumours that have followed him around since I first got into climbing 15 years ago. I just think that this thread is starting to become circular and does not have the ability to shed any more light on the situation.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) Unless the mysterious 7 were actually hanging off his back then i doubt they'd have been able to tell the quality of the placements from below, he could have just drilled them on a previous occasion.
Well at least one of them has. Daisy climber was there/holding the ropes (I think - I can't be bothered to trawl the threaad to confirm).
Also - to those of you seeking comment from M. Edwards, he has already commented in the original story. What else can he say?
I'm no apologist for him, I've never met him, and I've heard the stories and rumours that have followed him around since I first got into climbing 15 years ago. I just think that this thread is starting to become circular and does not have the ability to shed any more light on the situation.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
As Mark's climbing partners are by definition likely to be friends of his, I think one has to give him a little lee way in terms of what constitutes a 'witness'. They are unlikely to be completely impartial.
But come on, 7 witnesses?! If these exist it should be EASY for Mark to prove his innocence. All he has to do is get in contact with one or more of them (though not Andrea/DaisyClimbing who has been shown to be unreliable - I don't think it's unfair to say this) and ask them to present the events on the day as they saw them unfold.
But unless one of these 'witnesses' actually shows up and says something it would seem fair to doubt their existence in the first place.
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> while i think the weight of evidence on the thread looks problematic for Mr Edwards, the reply to hdog76 does show part of the problem he has establishing his "innocence" if he didnt do it
>
> if anyone posts being supportive of him, the suspicion is that they are a friend, and therefore the obvious implication is that they have a vested interest in backing him up, possibly by posting things that arent the truth
>
> if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
>
>
> while i think the weight of evidence on the thread looks problematic for Mr Edwards, the reply to hdog76 does show part of the problem he has establishing his "innocence" if he didnt do it
>
> if anyone posts being supportive of him, the suspicion is that they are a friend, and therefore the obvious implication is that they have a vested interest in backing him up, possibly by posting things that arent the truth
>
> if the mysterious 7 who allegedly witnessed the climb showed up on the thread (unlikely i;d have thought given how long its been going now) and said that he didnt drill the placements, would anyone actually believe them...?
>
As Mark's climbing partners are by definition likely to be friends of his, I think one has to give him a little lee way in terms of what constitutes a 'witness'. They are unlikely to be completely impartial.
But come on, 7 witnesses?! If these exist it should be EASY for Mark to prove his innocence. All he has to do is get in contact with one or more of them (though not Andrea/DaisyClimbing who has been shown to be unreliable - I don't think it's unfair to say this) and ask them to present the events on the day as they saw them unfold.
But unless one of these 'witnesses' actually shows up and says something it would seem fair to doubt their existence in the first place.
In reply to Monk:
To be fair with 7 witnesses in tow the burden would seem to be on Mark to shed more light on the situation?
> (In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll)
> [...]
>
I just think that this thread is starting to become circular and does not have the ability to shed any more light on the situation.> [...]
>
To be fair with 7 witnesses in tow the burden would seem to be on Mark to shed more light on the situation?
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Look at the response to anyone who has defended Mark to this point. They are accused of being friends of his, and having a vested interest, and anything they say is disregarded. Just above, you have disregarded one of the seven witnesses. Why will the others be treated any differently? On this thread, the judgement has already been made. Those witnesses would probably consider any effort to say what they saw to be pissing in the wind.
Again, I'm not defending Mark. These sort of things do seem to follow him around, but this thread has run it's course.
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
> I just think that this thread is starting to become circular and does not have the ability to shed any more light on the situation.
>
> To be fair with 7 witnesses in tow the burden would seem to be on Mark to shed more light on the situation?
> [...]
> I just think that this thread is starting to become circular and does not have the ability to shed any more light on the situation.
>
> To be fair with 7 witnesses in tow the burden would seem to be on Mark to shed more light on the situation?
Look at the response to anyone who has defended Mark to this point. They are accused of being friends of his, and having a vested interest, and anything they say is disregarded. Just above, you have disregarded one of the seven witnesses. Why will the others be treated any differently? On this thread, the judgement has already been made. Those witnesses would probably consider any effort to say what they saw to be pissing in the wind.
Again, I'm not defending Mark. These sort of things do seem to follow him around, but this thread has run it's course.
In reply to Monk:
But none of them were witnesses! They just said how they've had a great time climbing with him and he does a lot of hard stuff etc. They didn't say they were there on the day in question which is what they would have to do to count as a witness.
And surely you'd agree that DaisyClimbing makes an unreliable witness for reasons other than her just being very good friends with him?
By my count that leaves another 6 people who could come forward if they wanted to.
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
>
> Look at the response to anyone who has defended Mark to this point. They are accused of being friends of his, and having a vested interest, and anything they say is disregarded.
> [...]
>
> Look at the response to anyone who has defended Mark to this point. They are accused of being friends of his, and having a vested interest, and anything they say is disregarded.
But none of them were witnesses! They just said how they've had a great time climbing with him and he does a lot of hard stuff etc. They didn't say they were there on the day in question which is what they would have to do to count as a witness.
And surely you'd agree that DaisyClimbing makes an unreliable witness for reasons other than her just being very good friends with him?
By my count that leaves another 6 people who could come forward if they wanted to.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
As far as I know, and it's difficult to tell as the thread has been so heavily edited, Daisyclimbing has not said she was holding the ropes, or even present, on the day of the FA or for any of the cleaning.
So that still leaves 7 witnesses, one of whom may or may not be Daisyclimbing.
It is unlikely Mark is going to get a fair hearing at this stage, but I, for one, would be interested in what he or any of his witnesses have to say on the subject.
As far as I know, and it's difficult to tell as the thread has been so heavily edited, Daisyclimbing has not said she was holding the ropes, or even present, on the day of the FA or for any of the cleaning.
> "Mark repeated the route a couple of times after, with me belaying him and I stood at the base of the crag with very sweaty hands, knowing that a fall would lead to serious injuries at the very least, if not death. "
So that still leaves 7 witnesses, one of whom may or may not be Daisyclimbing.
It is unlikely Mark is going to get a fair hearing at this stage, but I, for one, would be interested in what he or any of his witnesses have to say on the subject.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161
Andrea is Daisyclimbing
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161
Andrea is Daisyclimbing
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Fair play, hadn't seen that. Seems bizarre that she comments on his repeat ascents and not the FA in which case.
Fair play, hadn't seen that. Seems bizarre that she comments on his repeat ascents and not the FA in which case.
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
Not sure I buy that Andy. If the (mysterious / magnificent / secret) seven (dwarfs / wonders / sages / brides for seven brothers) do exist, and they are climbers, surely they'd be able to see enough and ask and talk enough to know enough about the quality of the gear. I'd be curious as hell.
And the spacing would probably raise questions, which would also mean one of the slots would be somewhere near the ground.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) Unless the mysterious 7 were actually hanging off his back then i doubt they'd have been able to tell the quality of the placements from below, he could have just drilled them on a previous occasion.
Not sure I buy that Andy. If the (mysterious / magnificent / secret) seven (dwarfs / wonders / sages / brides for seven brothers) do exist, and they are climbers, surely they'd be able to see enough and ask and talk enough to know enough about the quality of the gear. I'd be curious as hell.
And the spacing would probably raise questions, which would also mean one of the slots would be somewhere near the ground.
In reply to jonny2vests:
I have read this thread from day one and kept quiet as people may think I have a hidden agenda, but I too am amazed at the silence from Mark Edwards!
Why dont we have a good photo?
Who held his ropes on the first lead?
Who took the photo?
Why dont we have at least a couple of the 7 come forward and give a response?
Why doesnt Mark try harder to make us believe his innocence?
Sam
I have read this thread from day one and kept quiet as people may think I have a hidden agenda, but I too am amazed at the silence from Mark Edwards!
Why dont we have a good photo?
Who held his ropes on the first lead?
Who took the photo?
Why dont we have at least a couple of the 7 come forward and give a response?
Why doesnt Mark try harder to make us believe his innocence?
Sam
In reply to Kid Spatula:
Read it again from the top - with one or two exceptions, it took a long time for the accusations/nastiness to start. Plenty of time for him to have posted (and he knew the article was going to appear so could have made himself available, rather than getting someone else to post for him).
The thread has got a bit out of hand since then, but largely IMHO due to the absence of Mr Edwards.
> To be fair, in this massive accusation/witch hunt/downright nasty thread, why the hell would Mark post?
Read it again from the top - with one or two exceptions, it took a long time for the accusations/nastiness to start. Plenty of time for him to have posted (and he knew the article was going to appear so could have made himself available, rather than getting someone else to post for him).
The thread has got a bit out of hand since then, but largely IMHO due to the absence of Mr Edwards.
In reply to Toreador: Mr Edwards has already made a statement, why should he come on here and defened himself against certain people who clearly have an axe to grind with him?
In reply to Big Steve:
Because lots of people on here don't have an axe to grind with him, because he could substantiate his claim to have had seven witnesses and because those witnesses could if they exist stand up his story.
Because lots of people on here don't have an axe to grind with him, because he could substantiate his claim to have had seven witnesses and because those witnesses could if they exist stand up his story.
In reply to Big Steve: If that was one of my routes,and a route concidered one of the big undun lines on the south west granite where chipping and bolting has been discused and put in its place i.e NOT ACCEPTABLE, AND WHERE THE PURITY OF THE LINE MUST BE WORSHIPED.
I would go out of my way to proove my innocence
I would go out of my way to proove my innocence
In reply to crankey: maybe he does not think UKC is the be all and end all of the climbing world?
In reply to Big Steve: that all depends whos on the forum.
In reply to Big Steve: Isn't it customary while claiming high grade new routes to provide some element of proof you have actually climbed it? And in the case of this controversy, it would appear reasonable to ask for some proof that the route was climbed without drilled cam slots for protection, especially given some previous episodes in his climbing. I'm not saying he drilled those slots, but Mark could at least reply to this thread and provide more details on his first ascent, regardless of the vitriolic tone of some posts.
Going back to the mystery driller, it's pathetic to bring a route down to your own level with blatant cheating and given that lack of guts, it's no surprise he/she's not owning up to the fact. It makes me physically sick to hear of such selfish behaviour.
Francois (only has an axe to grind with the mystery driller)
Going back to the mystery driller, it's pathetic to bring a route down to your own level with blatant cheating and given that lack of guts, it's no surprise he/she's not owning up to the fact. It makes me physically sick to hear of such selfish behaviour.
Francois (only has an axe to grind with the mystery driller)
In reply to Big Steve:
Steve people dont have an axe to grind, however I think his friends think they do which makes them come to his defence which you have a few times.
People just want the truth, as others have said if it was "their route" they would bend over backwards to make people understand what happened, his silence is not helping.
Sam
Steve people dont have an axe to grind, however I think his friends think they do which makes them come to his defence which you have a few times.
People just want the truth, as others have said if it was "their route" they would bend over backwards to make people understand what happened, his silence is not helping.
Sam
In reply to UKC News:
I think there is a way that guilt could be proven. A high res pic of the first ascent (which does exist in hundreds of copies of the magazine that the ascent was featured in) should show either a rope trailing down to some distant kit or 5 quickdraws evenly spaced up the cliff.
Its hard to prove innocence this way as there is always the possibility that the photo was doctored by Medwards and his photographer before submission but I think a lot of people have a pretty good idea of what the photo might show...
Who's got the mag?! Scan it in! If you work for the mag, get an agreement with UKC to include it with the article! If you have an original high res photo and are unbiased in this debate then show it!
I think there is a way that guilt could be proven. A high res pic of the first ascent (which does exist in hundreds of copies of the magazine that the ascent was featured in) should show either a rope trailing down to some distant kit or 5 quickdraws evenly spaced up the cliff.
Its hard to prove innocence this way as there is always the possibility that the photo was doctored by Medwards and his photographer before submission but I think a lot of people have a pretty good idea of what the photo might show...
Who's got the mag?! Scan it in! If you work for the mag, get an agreement with UKC to include it with the article! If you have an original high res photo and are unbiased in this debate then show it!
In reply to Big Steve:
Because it was a very short statement, lacking in detail.
And if it were my route that had been defaced, I'd be trying to get to the bottom of who did it!
> Mr Edwards has already made a statement, why should he come on here
Because it was a very short statement, lacking in detail.
And if it were my route that had been defaced, I'd be trying to get to the bottom of who did it!
In reply to Will Hunt:
Interesting one this, I have been through all my back copies from around the time of the FA (August 09) and into early 2010 and can't find the article referred to. If someone has found which edition it's in, I would like to have another look.
Interesting one this, I have been through all my back copies from around the time of the FA (August 09) and into early 2010 and can't find the article referred to. If someone has found which edition it's in, I would like to have another look.
ps: this is the CC record of the FA which suggests the belayer was indeed Andrea.
Submitted by : Mark Edwards
Area : West Cornwall - West Penwith
Crag : Lands End
Date of ascent : 9/8/2009
Route name : The First and Last Wall
Length/grade/stars : 30m E8
Climbers : Mark Edwards, Andrea van der Wild
Start location:
Approach as for Longships Corner.
Pitch descriptions:
30m 6c Climb a series of steps to a left facing flake crack. Climb the crack to its end. Climb the center of the obvious wall above to reach the start of a faint crack that leads to the top.
Additional info:
Lots of loose rock found and cleaned prior to ascent. The line is still not clear of some crumblyness, but is still an amazing and remarkable climb.
Submitted by : Mark Edwards
Area : West Cornwall - West Penwith
Crag : Lands End
Date of ascent : 9/8/2009
Route name : The First and Last Wall
Length/grade/stars : 30m E8
Climbers : Mark Edwards, Andrea van der Wild
Start location:
Approach as for Longships Corner.
Pitch descriptions:
30m 6c Climb a series of steps to a left facing flake crack. Climb the crack to its end. Climb the center of the obvious wall above to reach the start of a faint crack that leads to the top.
Additional info:
Lots of loose rock found and cleaned prior to ascent. The line is still not clear of some crumblyness, but is still an amazing and remarkable climb.
In reply to JonC:
When it says "climbers" does that mean that Andrea will have followed Mark and taken out the gear or could he have come back down on the rope and stripped the cams himself.
I dont think I would be able to follow anyone on a route that hard and removed the gear.
Sam
When it says "climbers" does that mean that Andrea will have followed Mark and taken out the gear or could he have come back down on the rope and stripped the cams himself.
I dont think I would be able to follow anyone on a route that hard and removed the gear.
Sam
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Though I could be doing Andrea a serious disservice, I would hazard a guess she belayed then Mark stripped it by abseil.
Though I could be doing Andrea a serious disservice, I would hazard a guess she belayed then Mark stripped it by abseil.
In reply to All (and Alan):
You and Yours on R4 now discussing online anonymity and pseudonyms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sz3rr
You and Yours on R4 now discussing online anonymity and pseudonyms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sz3rr
In reply to JonC:
In her account which was removed I think she said she was sweating holding the ropes and that he climbed it more than once even though it would be a very bad fall!
He was brave to give it another go really!
Sam
In her account which was removed I think she said she was sweating holding the ropes and that he climbed it more than once even though it would be a very bad fall!
He was brave to give it another go really!
Sam
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Daisyclimber said in her now deleted post that she followed the route, I believe. Certainly that's what it would conventionally mean to record the route with two names.
I feel this quote from an article at the time of the Red Rose controversy is worth preserving: ME explaining how easily these things can happen by mistake (in relation to a route at Folly Cove, I think, but I've forgotten what it was called, I'm afraid. Anyone able to help?)
"A beautiful roof with an ugly knee bruiser of a lip, and bolt protection. Unfortunately Mark had got a bit over enthusiastic with his electric drill, the crucial hold over the lip is a line of drilled holes about an inch deep. Mark explained that he had tried to place a bolt in this position but had encountered loose rock, this he removed with his drill which uncovered the hold."
jcm
Daisyclimber said in her now deleted post that she followed the route, I believe. Certainly that's what it would conventionally mean to record the route with two names.
I feel this quote from an article at the time of the Red Rose controversy is worth preserving: ME explaining how easily these things can happen by mistake (in relation to a route at Folly Cove, I think, but I've forgotten what it was called, I'm afraid. Anyone able to help?)
"A beautiful roof with an ugly knee bruiser of a lip, and bolt protection. Unfortunately Mark had got a bit over enthusiastic with his electric drill, the crucial hold over the lip is a line of drilled holes about an inch deep. Mark explained that he had tried to place a bolt in this position but had encountered loose rock, this he removed with his drill which uncovered the hold."
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Maybe someone can confirm what she said as I read it that she didnt follow him up, if she did he must be a great coach as she struggled up demo route a year ago! good effort.
Sam
Maybe someone can confirm what she said as I read it that she didnt follow him up, if she did he must be a great coach as she struggled up demo route a year ago! good effort.
Sam
In reply to francois:
>Isn't it customary while claiming high grade new routes to provide some element of proof you have actually climbed it?
It depends who you are. Some people's policy in the past has been not to record it at all so that you can splash the details in your own guidebook. I don't think ME bothered to release any details of his new 2007 E10 at Boscawen Point at the time, for example. Curiously, as I probably mentioned before, another controversial character, Gary Gibson, took much the same approach, when reclimbing his Lundy bolt routes without the bolts, belayed by his girlfriend. I don't think these were recorded until they appeared in a footnote in the Lundy guidebook, despite the fact that when Neil Dickson did one of the easier ones without the bolts it was found to be E9, so quite possibly Gibson's efforts were in fact the first E10.
jcm
>Isn't it customary while claiming high grade new routes to provide some element of proof you have actually climbed it?
It depends who you are. Some people's policy in the past has been not to record it at all so that you can splash the details in your own guidebook. I don't think ME bothered to release any details of his new 2007 E10 at Boscawen Point at the time, for example. Curiously, as I probably mentioned before, another controversial character, Gary Gibson, took much the same approach, when reclimbing his Lundy bolt routes without the bolts, belayed by his girlfriend. I don't think these were recorded until they appeared in a footnote in the Lundy guidebook, despite the fact that when Neil Dickson did one of the easier ones without the bolts it was found to be E9, so quite possibly Gibson's efforts were in fact the first E10.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I agree that showing two names normally means the belayer followed, but I would imagine that's not exactly a hard and fast rule and my recollection wasn't that she said she'd climbed it.
> Daisyclimber said in her now deleted post that she followed the route, I believe. Certainly that's what it would conventionally mean to record the route with two names.
I agree that showing two names normally means the belayer followed, but I would imagine that's not exactly a hard and fast rule and my recollection wasn't that she said she'd climbed it.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It'll need to get like the registry office soon, with a couple of witnesses plus the FA and second
> (In reply to Sam Mayfield)
>
> Daisyclimber said in her now deleted post that she followed the route, I believe. Certainly that's what it would conventionally mean to record the route with two names.
>
>
> Daisyclimber said in her now deleted post that she followed the route, I believe. Certainly that's what it would conventionally mean to record the route with two names.
>
It'll need to get like the registry office soon, with a couple of witnesses plus the FA and second
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
6c on bomber gear? Sounds like a warm up.
> He was brave to give it another go really!
6c on bomber gear? Sounds like a warm up.
In reply to JonC:
Surely it IS a hard and fast rule. If you record two names that means both did the climb. You don't give someone's name just because they belayed!
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> [...]
>
> I agree that showing two names normally means the belayer followed, but I would imagine that's not exactly a hard and fast rule and my recollection wasn't that she said she'd climbed it.
>
> [...]
>
> I agree that showing two names normally means the belayer followed, but I would imagine that's not exactly a hard and fast rule and my recollection wasn't that she said she'd climbed it.
Surely it IS a hard and fast rule. If you record two names that means both did the climb. You don't give someone's name just because they belayed!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
This is one of the best posts ever.
Well done to everyone for pointing this stuff out (particularly Nic and of course Jack for writing the article).
Oh and to those defending Medwards & Redwards, be assured this has been coming for a long long time. Many of us have been aware of Mark's activities for over 20 years (and his fathers prior to that, although personally I'm not quite that old ). The "guilty til proven innocent" line just doesn't wash when the instances of foul play are so numerous and have surrounded the same protagonists across decades and even across national borders.
If it looks like a duck etc.
Jasper Sharpe
(not sure why I've bothered as Mick will probably delete this)
> (In reply to francois)
>
> >Isn't it customary while claiming high grade new routes to provide some element of proof you have actually climbed it?
>
> It depends who you are. Some people's policy in the past has been not to record it at all so that you can splash the details in your own guidebook. I don't think ME bothered to release any details of his new 2007 E10 at Boscawen Point at the time, for example. Curiously, as I probably mentioned before, another controversial character, Gary Gibson, took much the same approach, when reclimbing his Lundy bolt routes without the bolts, belayed by his girlfriend. I don't think these were recorded until they appeared in a footnote in the Lundy guidebook, despite the fact that when Neil Dickson did one of the easier ones without the bolts it was found to be E9, so quite possibly Gibson's efforts were in fact the first E10.
>
> jcm
>
> >Isn't it customary while claiming high grade new routes to provide some element of proof you have actually climbed it?
>
> It depends who you are. Some people's policy in the past has been not to record it at all so that you can splash the details in your own guidebook. I don't think ME bothered to release any details of his new 2007 E10 at Boscawen Point at the time, for example. Curiously, as I probably mentioned before, another controversial character, Gary Gibson, took much the same approach, when reclimbing his Lundy bolt routes without the bolts, belayed by his girlfriend. I don't think these were recorded until they appeared in a footnote in the Lundy guidebook, despite the fact that when Neil Dickson did one of the easier ones without the bolts it was found to be E9, so quite possibly Gibson's efforts were in fact the first E10.
>
> jcm
This is one of the best posts ever.
Well done to everyone for pointing this stuff out (particularly Nic and of course Jack for writing the article).
Oh and to those defending Medwards & Redwards, be assured this has been coming for a long long time. Many of us have been aware of Mark's activities for over 20 years (and his fathers prior to that, although personally I'm not quite that old ). The "guilty til proven innocent" line just doesn't wash when the instances of foul play are so numerous and have surrounded the same protagonists across decades and even across national borders.
If it looks like a duck etc.
Jasper Sharpe
(not sure why I've bothered as Mick will probably delete this)
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I think I've seen both before but I don't think that really matter here. What might be important would be whether she or anyone else at that time had close up views as to the state of the cam placements.
The reason I posted the extract from the CC website was to show a) the date if the FA and b) the fact that Andrea/Daisy was recorded as being there.
I think I've seen both before but I don't think that really matter here. What might be important would be whether she or anyone else at that time had close up views as to the state of the cam placements.
The reason I posted the extract from the CC website was to show a) the date if the FA and b) the fact that Andrea/Daisy was recorded as being there.
In reply to seagull:
I don't know the truth any more than most posters on this thread, and I am not trying to defend Mark as such (that's up to him and any people with relevant info), but this line of "we all know what's been happening" is a little like a thread on UKC some while back started by a very good climber exposing the supposed cheating of another well known climber - and there was scant evidence, just lots of gossip amounting supposedly to something close to fact. I think the accused came out of it better than the accuser in some respects and has gone on to do some rather notable climbs (proven). Of course, here, there is hard evidence of altering the rock, but not much else eg. who did it and when.
All I'm saying is that there seem to be a lot of people who "know things" (supposedly) with lots of gossip circulating but that doesn't amount to proof. And some of the posters seem to think it does.
> Oh and to those defending Medwards & Redwards, be assured this has been coming for a long long time. Many of us have been aware of Mark's activities for over 20 years (and his fathers prior to that, although personally I'm not quite that old ). The "guilty til proven innocent" line just doesn't wash when the instances of foul play are so numerous and have surrounded the same protagonists across decades and even across national borders.
I don't know the truth any more than most posters on this thread, and I am not trying to defend Mark as such (that's up to him and any people with relevant info), but this line of "we all know what's been happening" is a little like a thread on UKC some while back started by a very good climber exposing the supposed cheating of another well known climber - and there was scant evidence, just lots of gossip amounting supposedly to something close to fact. I think the accused came out of it better than the accuser in some respects and has gone on to do some rather notable climbs (proven). Of course, here, there is hard evidence of altering the rock, but not much else eg. who did it and when.
All I'm saying is that there seem to be a lot of people who "know things" (supposedly) with lots of gossip circulating but that doesn't amount to proof. And some of the posters seem to think it does.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
What a load of sh**e. Who cleans with a drill?!
> (In reply to Sam Mayfield)
>
> Mark explained that he had tried to place a bolt in this position but had encountered loose rock, this he removed with his drill which uncovered the hold."
>
> jcm
>
> Mark explained that he had tried to place a bolt in this position but had encountered loose rock, this he removed with his drill which uncovered the hold."
>
> jcm
What a load of sh**e. Who cleans with a drill?!
In reply to JonC:
Well, there's never going to be any positive proof, Jon, is there? The Edwardses are professional climbers who are on the cliffs a lot in their own company and make a practice of not reporting their routes until some time after the claimed FA dates. Some of the holds on their routes are found to be the product of drilling. Some of their routes contain mysterious bolt holes when the FA was claimed without bolts. The Edwardses say it was the work of a mysterious stranger who has followed them around since 1988 and has never breathed a word to anyone of his activities. Their detractors say that they did it.
Whichever is true, short of someone actually turning up and witnessing shenanigans by chance, there's never going to be any proof.
Besides, Graham Everett's tale about Cool Diamonds, for example, doesn't admit of much doubt, assuming you believe him.
Of course, as you probably know, someone did turn up and watched the Edwardses 'cleaning' a route in the mid-eighties. There were allegations and counter-allegations, and the Edwardses (or possibly to be fair only Edwards senior) wrote green-ink letters to the CC threatening libel action if these allegations were published in the guidebook. Hence the rather muted version which appears in the Des Hannigan guidebook.
jcm
Well, there's never going to be any positive proof, Jon, is there? The Edwardses are professional climbers who are on the cliffs a lot in their own company and make a practice of not reporting their routes until some time after the claimed FA dates. Some of the holds on their routes are found to be the product of drilling. Some of their routes contain mysterious bolt holes when the FA was claimed without bolts. The Edwardses say it was the work of a mysterious stranger who has followed them around since 1988 and has never breathed a word to anyone of his activities. Their detractors say that they did it.
Whichever is true, short of someone actually turning up and witnessing shenanigans by chance, there's never going to be any proof.
Besides, Graham Everett's tale about Cool Diamonds, for example, doesn't admit of much doubt, assuming you believe him.
Of course, as you probably know, someone did turn up and watched the Edwardses 'cleaning' a route in the mid-eighties. There were allegations and counter-allegations, and the Edwardses (or possibly to be fair only Edwards senior) wrote green-ink letters to the CC threatening libel action if these allegations were published in the guidebook. Hence the rather muted version which appears in the Des Hannigan guidebook.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
There might be better proof than we've seen so far, particularly about this current example. I am not sure why it's all gone so quiet about the photo supposedly in the mags (I can't find it, but someone should be able to). Also, has anyone been on or abbed the line, or seen anyone on the line between August and the latest ascent? Or maybe Mark might actually expand/clarify etc.
I appreciate the context in which you say this, but I do wonder if there is a bit of jealousy around this (not from you of course) which causes people to want to believe all they hear. Rather different but Bonners suffered some jealousy and back biting from being a little too successful at self promotion.
I do but most of the stories told above seem to have some element of vagueness about them. Take the one about Roland on the Cromlech which was presented as proof of his cheating but has (above) been shown to be pretty close to what he actually reported.
I agree that all the evidence adds up but some of it relates to Roland, not Mark, and some of it is rather vague.
> Well, there's never going to be any positive proof, Jon, is there?
There might be better proof than we've seen so far, particularly about this current example. I am not sure why it's all gone so quiet about the photo supposedly in the mags (I can't find it, but someone should be able to). Also, has anyone been on or abbed the line, or seen anyone on the line between August and the latest ascent? Or maybe Mark might actually expand/clarify etc.
> The Edwardses are professional climbers
I appreciate the context in which you say this, but I do wonder if there is a bit of jealousy around this (not from you of course) which causes people to want to believe all they hear. Rather different but Bonners suffered some jealousy and back biting from being a little too successful at self promotion.
> Besides, Graham Everett's tale about Cool Diamonds, for example, doesn't admit of much doubt, assuming you believe him.
I do but most of the stories told above seem to have some element of vagueness about them. Take the one about Roland on the Cromlech which was presented as proof of his cheating but has (above) been shown to be pretty close to what he actually reported.
I agree that all the evidence adds up but some of it relates to Roland, not Mark, and some of it is rather vague.
In reply to JonC:
It seems to me there is fairly good evidence. It's clear from Mark's quote in the OP that the first ascent was done using at-least-adequate small-cam protection. So there were cam slots there at that time. Thus one of (1) the slots are natural; (2) the slots were created prior to the FA; (3) these slots are natural and were used for the FA, giving adequate protection, and have since been drilled out to improve them. The first is implausible; the third is rather far-fetched. But anyway, in the absence of strong protestations from ME (who will have seen the photos) that 1 or 3 is the case, 2 is by far the likeliest. So we have 2a (created prior to FA by the FA-ist) and 2b (created prior to FA by someone else).
Then note that ME states he had been inspecting the face since the 1980s and waiting for cams to get small enough to fit, and so he would have noticed any substantial change in the slots, if 2b were the case, and yet ME's remarks in the OP rule this out. At that point the time, place and list of suspects is fairly narrowed down.
> Of course, here, there is hard evidence of altering the rock, but not much else eg. who did it and when.
It seems to me there is fairly good evidence. It's clear from Mark's quote in the OP that the first ascent was done using at-least-adequate small-cam protection. So there were cam slots there at that time. Thus one of (1) the slots are natural; (2) the slots were created prior to the FA; (3) these slots are natural and were used for the FA, giving adequate protection, and have since been drilled out to improve them. The first is implausible; the third is rather far-fetched. But anyway, in the absence of strong protestations from ME (who will have seen the photos) that 1 or 3 is the case, 2 is by far the likeliest. So we have 2a (created prior to FA by the FA-ist) and 2b (created prior to FA by someone else).
Then note that ME states he had been inspecting the face since the 1980s and waiting for cams to get small enough to fit, and so he would have noticed any substantial change in the slots, if 2b were the case, and yet ME's remarks in the OP rule this out. At that point the time, place and list of suspects is fairly narrowed down.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Do tell. In for a penny ...
> Of course, as you probably know, someone did turn up and watched the Edwardses 'cleaning'
> a route in the mid-eighties. There were allegations and counter-allegations, and the
> Edwardses (or possibly to be fair only Edwards senior) wrote green-ink letters to the CC
> threatening libel action if these allegations were published in the guidebook. Hence the
> rather muted version which appears in the Des Hannigan guidebook.
> a route in the mid-eighties. There were allegations and counter-allegations, and the
> Edwardses (or possibly to be fair only Edwards senior) wrote green-ink letters to the CC
> threatening libel action if these allegations were published in the guidebook. Hence the
> rather muted version which appears in the Des Hannigan guidebook.
Do tell. In for a penny ...
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I am not sure why you dismiss 3) as being far fetched. Is it any more far fetched than Mark actually drilling it himself in such an obvious way prior to the FA and expecting people not to notice when they come to look at the route for a repeat?
Not saying you're wrong in overall conclusion but I think you dismiss 3) as it suits you to do so.
I am not sure why you dismiss 3) as being far fetched. Is it any more far fetched than Mark actually drilling it himself in such an obvious way prior to the FA and expecting people not to notice when they come to look at the route for a repeat?
Not saying you're wrong in overall conclusion but I think you dismiss 3) as it suits you to do so.
In reply to JonC:
The only plausible motive would be to discredit Mark. I find that far-fetched. It would also have to have been quite subtle, on the presumption that the slots were originally good enough to take cams that would hold falls, as indicated by Mark's Climber account. And there is also the absence of a claim that the photos of the slots show them to be quite different from how they were on the FA.
> I am not sure why you dismiss 3) as being far fetched.
The only plausible motive would be to discredit Mark. I find that far-fetched. It would also have to have been quite subtle, on the presumption that the slots were originally good enough to take cams that would hold falls, as indicated by Mark's Climber account. And there is also the absence of a claim that the photos of the slots show them to be quite different from how they were on the FA.
In reply to thomas m:
Interesting write up by Mark in Climb. Particularly his rather lengthy comments on the cams and pockets.
The photo in the mag is inconclusive, though you can clearly see some runners. Has anyone been in touch with the mag re the original photo?
As to who the other parties present were, well I guess that the photo may have been taken by Roland as it's in the Edwards Collection. However, Mark states that Egbert Dozekal top roped it afterwards with some holds crumbling. Anyone know Egbert D?
Interesting write up by Mark in Climb. Particularly his rather lengthy comments on the cams and pockets.
The photo in the mag is inconclusive, though you can clearly see some runners. Has anyone been in touch with the mag re the original photo?
As to who the other parties present were, well I guess that the photo may have been taken by Roland as it's in the Edwards Collection. However, Mark states that Egbert Dozekal top roped it afterwards with some holds crumbling. Anyone know Egbert D?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How about someone else wanted to climb it? Some people do climb things and not publicise. If so, he/she might not be too fussed about whether the "improvement" would subsequently be noticed.
Come on, at the time he commented for the article he probably hadn't seen the photos. His silence now is admittedly more worrying, although you and I have no idea of his movements and access to internet.
I would reiterate that I am not actually trying to defend Mark. Simply pointing out that your view is not necessarily correct and you sppear to be over-looking/dismissing some options, for whatever reason.
> The only plausible motive would be to discredit Mark.
How about someone else wanted to climb it? Some people do climb things and not publicise. If so, he/she might not be too fussed about whether the "improvement" would subsequently be noticed.
> And there is also the absence of a claim that the photos of the slots show them to be quite different from how they were on the FA.
Come on, at the time he commented for the article he probably hadn't seen the photos. His silence now is admittedly more worrying, although you and I have no idea of his movements and access to internet.
I would reiterate that I am not actually trying to defend Mark. Simply pointing out that your view is not necessarily correct and you sppear to be over-looking/dismissing some options, for whatever reason.
In reply to UKC News:
Someone help me here. I am relatively new to climbing and fail to see why these slots would be a problem. If they are to provide a safe place to put a cam then surely that is a good thing? And if you want the additional challenge of not having that safety, then simply do not use the slots. Why would you be appalled? Its not seal-clubbing.
Someone help me here. I am relatively new to climbing and fail to see why these slots would be a problem. If they are to provide a safe place to put a cam then surely that is a good thing? And if you want the additional challenge of not having that safety, then simply do not use the slots. Why would you be appalled? Its not seal-clubbing.
In reply to JonC:
Such a person would have to: want to climb it; and not be prepared to use protection Mark thought adequate; and not be willing to accept top-roping it; and not care about damaging the rock; and not care about how this might be perceived by others or how it might reflect on Mark; and not care about claiming the 2nd ascent or making their climb known.
Yes, that is all within the bounds of remote possibility, but surely "far fetched" is fair?
Alan James stated above that he had exchanged emails with Mark about this thread and had invited Mark to post his side. And if you had a decent defence wouldn't you regard it as quite a priority? He was a fairly frequent poster up until this thread.
> How about someone else wanted to climb it? Some people do climb things and not publicise.
> If so, he/she might not be too fussed about whether the "improvement" would subsequently be noticed.
> If so, he/she might not be too fussed about whether the "improvement" would subsequently be noticed.
Such a person would have to: want to climb it; and not be prepared to use protection Mark thought adequate; and not be willing to accept top-roping it; and not care about damaging the rock; and not care about how this might be perceived by others or how it might reflect on Mark; and not care about claiming the 2nd ascent or making their climb known.
Yes, that is all within the bounds of remote possibility, but surely "far fetched" is fair?
> His silence now is admittedly more worrying, although you and I have no idea of his movements
> and access to internet.
> and access to internet.
Alan James stated above that he had exchanged emails with Mark about this thread and had invited Mark to post his side. And if you had a decent defence wouldn't you regard it as quite a priority? He was a fairly frequent poster up until this thread.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Why is that any more far fetched than Mark having done it (ignoring previous "form")? In fact, if it was someone who didn't feel the need to publicise, surely that is less far fetched than Mark having done it (and draw it to everyone's attention as a result).
You specifically referred to the photos of the cam slots. Hence my comment. Now you widen it out, ok, and I agree in general. Just not your specific earlier point re the photos - which Mark may well not have seen.
> Such a person would have to: want to climb it; and not be prepared to use protection Mark thought adequate; and not be willing to accept top-roping it; and not care about damaging the rock; and not care about how this might be perceived by others or how it might reflect on Mark; and not care about claiming the 2nd ascent or making their climb known.
>
> Yes, that is all within the bounds of remote possibility, but surely "far fetched" is fair?
>
> Yes, that is all within the bounds of remote possibility, but surely "far fetched" is fair?
Why is that any more far fetched than Mark having done it (ignoring previous "form")? In fact, if it was someone who didn't feel the need to publicise, surely that is less far fetched than Mark having done it (and draw it to everyone's attention as a result).
> Alan James stated above that he had exchanged emails with Mark about this thread and had invited Mark to post his side. And if you had a decent defence wouldn't you regard it as quite a priority? He was a fairly frequent poster up until this thread.
You specifically referred to the photos of the cam slots. Hence my comment. Now you widen it out, ok, and I agree in general. Just not your specific earlier point re the photos - which Mark may well not have seen.
In reply to adsheff:
Indeed, and doesn't it show!
Chris
>
> Someone help me here. I am relatively new to climbing and fail to see why these slots would be a problem.
> Someone help me here. I am relatively new to climbing and fail to see why these slots would be a problem.
Indeed, and doesn't it show!
Chris
In reply to Lurkio:
It's too obvious, no-one will bite (I hope!)
> Hope you've got your flame-proof pants on....
It's too obvious, no-one will bite (I hope!)
In reply to JonC:
Do you think so? Wouldn't that require Jack/Alan/whoever to have asked Mark for a comment, while withholding important information?
> the photos - which Mark may well not have seen
Do you think so? Wouldn't that require Jack/Alan/whoever to have asked Mark for a comment, while withholding important information?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation. Earlier in this thread I posted a link to a thread last year ostensibly started by a poster unconnected with the Edwards (DaisyClimbing)to which Mark replied listing a number of his new routes at Pellitras Point. I pointed out that some of these had been climbed and reported earlier and to be fair Mark conceded the point. Unfortunately the thread that I linked to appears to have been deleted. But Mark also mentioned in his helpful reply to Daisy that he had climbed other routes not listed in his post. He should report these straight away, not least to avoid some of the suspicions that arise when someone else claims a first ascent only to then find that Mark or Rowland claim to have done it ages ago.
A little to the right of Las Meninas on Pellitras Buttress is a beautiful line up a small buttress, following a flake to a rounded, gritstone-style top out.We had looked at this in 2008 but concluded it was too hard for us; I would think about E6. When we looked at it again in the autumn of 2009 the top appeared to have been subjected to some sort of industrial scouring. Rightly or wrongly I assumed that this was one of Mark's climbed but unclaimed lines and that he was allowing the newly exposed rock to weather in so that the 'cleaning' was less obvious. Perhaps Mark would clarify. If it hasn't been climbed someone ought to get out and nab it.
Brian Hannon
> (In reply to JonC)
>
... The Edwardses are professional climbers who are on the cliffs a lot in their own company and make a practice of not reporting their routes until some time after the claimed FA dates. Some of the holds on their routes are found to be the product of drilling. Some of their routes contain mysterious bolt holes when the FA was claimed without bolts. The Edwardses say it was the work of a mysterious stranger who has followed them around since 1988 and has never breathed a word to anyone of his activities. Their detractors say that they did it...>
Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation. Earlier in this thread I posted a link to a thread last year ostensibly started by a poster unconnected with the Edwards (DaisyClimbing)to which Mark replied listing a number of his new routes at Pellitras Point. I pointed out that some of these had been climbed and reported earlier and to be fair Mark conceded the point. Unfortunately the thread that I linked to appears to have been deleted. But Mark also mentioned in his helpful reply to Daisy that he had climbed other routes not listed in his post. He should report these straight away, not least to avoid some of the suspicions that arise when someone else claims a first ascent only to then find that Mark or Rowland claim to have done it ages ago.
A little to the right of Las Meninas on Pellitras Buttress is a beautiful line up a small buttress, following a flake to a rounded, gritstone-style top out.We had looked at this in 2008 but concluded it was too hard for us; I would think about E6. When we looked at it again in the autumn of 2009 the top appeared to have been subjected to some sort of industrial scouring. Rightly or wrongly I assumed that this was one of Mark's climbed but unclaimed lines and that he was allowing the newly exposed rock to weather in so that the 'cleaning' was less obvious. Perhaps Mark would clarify. If it hasn't been climbed someone ought to get out and nab it.
Brian Hannon
In reply to Toreador:
I was looking for some answers??
I was looking for some answers??
In reply to UKC News:
If I was doing outstanding ascents and for years some mystery person(s) had been following me around drilling placements etc I would be sure on each new major ascent to get good photos especially with loads of people there.
If I was doing outstanding ascents and for years some mystery person(s) had been following me around drilling placements etc I would be sure on each new major ascent to get good photos especially with loads of people there.
In reply to Toreador:
I have no idea how they communicated this to him. Maybe they just emailed and explained in words. I don't think that would reflect badly on anyone.
> Do you think so? Wouldn't that require Jack/Alan/whoever to have asked Mark for a comment, while withholding important information?
I have no idea how they communicated this to him. Maybe they just emailed and explained in words. I don't think that would reflect badly on anyone.
In reply to JonC:
Historically, instances of chipping by an experienced climber are nearly always related to a first ascent. In comparison, the set of circumstances in my previous post would be unusual and fairly unprecedented. Plus, previous form is surely relevant here.
If you had been contacted and supplied quotes re this news piece, and had then been told about this thread by your girlfriend, who had posted on it, and had had email exchanges with Alan James about it -- and if all these concerned cam slots about a prized first ascent, wouldn't you be keen to view the photos? Especially if you were innocent, and had not chipped anything, wouldn't your top priority be to inspect the photos and see what they showed? Your suggestion that "Mark may well not have seen" them is far, far fetched! sorry! ;-0
> Why is that any more far fetched than Mark having done it (ignoring previous "form")?
Historically, instances of chipping by an experienced climber are nearly always related to a first ascent. In comparison, the set of circumstances in my previous post would be unusual and fairly unprecedented. Plus, previous form is surely relevant here.
> Just not your specific earlier point re the photos - which Mark may well not have seen.
If you had been contacted and supplied quotes re this news piece, and had then been told about this thread by your girlfriend, who had posted on it, and had had email exchanges with Alan James about it -- and if all these concerned cam slots about a prized first ascent, wouldn't you be keen to view the photos? Especially if you were innocent, and had not chipped anything, wouldn't your top priority be to inspect the photos and see what they showed? Your suggestion that "Mark may well not have seen" them is far, far fetched! sorry! ;-0
In reply to Brian H:
From the perspective of an outside observor, that's quite a conclusion to jump to with 0% evidence. Unless you tell us otherwise.
> Rightly or wrongly I assumed that this was one of Mark's climbed but unclaimed lines and that he was allowing the newly exposed rock to weather in so that the 'cleaning' was less obvious. Perhaps Mark would clarify.
From the perspective of an outside observor, that's quite a conclusion to jump to with 0% evidence. Unless you tell us otherwise.
In reply to Brian H:
>Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation.
I don't know that I'd even call it an allegation. Didn't they write to the magazines at some point to say they weren't going to be reporting their new routes in future because people were so horrid to them and they were going to save them for their own guidebook? I forget when. My memory connects it with all those routes they reported from that zawn next to Chair Ladder (Private Performance and so on), but I'm senile and my memory isn't what it was.
jcm
>Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation.
I don't know that I'd even call it an allegation. Didn't they write to the magazines at some point to say they weren't going to be reporting their new routes in future because people were so horrid to them and they were going to save them for their own guidebook? I forget when. My memory connects it with all those routes they reported from that zawn next to Chair Ladder (Private Performance and so on), but I'm senile and my memory isn't what it was.
jcm
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Er, when I made that comment I made it clear that I meant he may not have seen them when he commented for the article. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I have said I do find much more strange that he has not commented since.
> Your suggestion that "Mark may well not have seen" them is far, far fetched!
Er, when I made that comment I made it clear that I meant he may not have seen them when he commented for the article. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I have said I do find much more strange that he has not commented since.
In reply to JonC:
Oh, I don't know. Obviously unclaimed line with signs of human activity on it in region where a particular climber says he's done a number of new routes? It seems a reasonable working assumption to connect the two pending other information. I certainly wouldn't call it "0% evidence".
jcm
Oh, I don't know. Obviously unclaimed line with signs of human activity on it in region where a particular climber says he's done a number of new routes? It seems a reasonable working assumption to connect the two pending other information. I certainly wouldn't call it "0% evidence".
jcm
In reply to adsheff:
Your profile suggests you've only climbed on bolts. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced trad-climbing -- leading climbs on the protection that the rock provides -- for themselves, but it adds a whole dimension to climbing beyond that provided by artifically-protected climbing, which in comparison can be soulless and one-dimensional. If you keep at climbing and get to the stage of having lead a few dozen routes at VS to E1, I expect you'll then understand this. Sorry if this is patronising, but it really is hard to explain unless you learn it for yourself.
Your profile suggests you've only climbed on bolts. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced trad-climbing -- leading climbs on the protection that the rock provides -- for themselves, but it adds a whole dimension to climbing beyond that provided by artifically-protected climbing, which in comparison can be soulless and one-dimensional. If you keep at climbing and get to the stage of having lead a few dozen routes at VS to E1, I expect you'll then understand this. Sorry if this is patronising, but it really is hard to explain unless you learn it for yourself.
I'm going to log off because this is making me quite angry.
I agree that the evidence, past and present, points towards Mark. Yet the "proof" is not conclusive and I am quite amazed about some of the comments being made on here, essentially to rubbish Mark before he has a chance to consider again and respond in the, hopefully, not too distant.
I agree that the evidence, past and present, points towards Mark. Yet the "proof" is not conclusive and I am quite amazed about some of the comments being made on here, essentially to rubbish Mark before he has a chance to consider again and respond in the, hopefully, not too distant.
In reply to JonC:
It's not a conclusion - it's an assumption which I am aware can be rebutted, but there is some evidence. Mark has climbed routes at about that time, in that area and has admitted that he has not yet claimed all of them. Isn't he the most likely person to have cleaned and climbed the route? I have invited him to clarify.
> (In reply to Brian H)
>
> [...]
>
> From the perspective of an outside observor, that's quite a conclusion to jump to with 0% evidence. Unless you tell us otherwise.
>
> [...]
>
> From the perspective of an outside observor, that's quite a conclusion to jump to with 0% evidence. Unless you tell us otherwise.
It's not a conclusion - it's an assumption which I am aware can be rebutted, but there is some evidence. Mark has climbed routes at about that time, in that area and has admitted that he has not yet claimed all of them. Isn't he the most likely person to have cleaned and climbed the route? I have invited him to clarify.
In reply to JonC:
Sorry, it was an accidental misunderstanding not a deliberate one. Agreed, he may not have seen the photos when he made the remarks in the OP. But he would surely make it a priority to then see them asap.
> Er, when I made that comment I made it clear that I meant he may not have seen them when he
> commented for the article. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
> commented for the article. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
Sorry, it was an accidental misunderstanding not a deliberate one. Agreed, he may not have seen the photos when he made the remarks in the OP. But he would surely make it a priority to then see them asap.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Maybe not 0% but hardly more han a suspicion. Enough to post on this thread as yet more "evidence"? Apologies to OP if that wasn't his intent. Right am out of here..
Maybe not 0% but hardly more han a suspicion. Enough to post on this thread as yet more "evidence"? Apologies to OP if that wasn't his intent. Right am out of here..
In reply to Coel Hellier: Just to lighten up a bit Coel - I went to Mt Pleasant last year and turned around without climbing anything. Anybody who clips bolts attached to loose boulders on a pile of choss must have cohones like melons!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Thanks for the reply. Not patronising at all - I have done trad climbing quite a bit this summer as well as bolted and indoor. I can understand that it adds an extra dimension to the routes but to be "appalled" seems quite extreme. I was appalled when a load of people were shot in Cumbria, but not when someone drilled a 1cm hole in a rock.
Thanks for the reply. Not patronising at all - I have done trad climbing quite a bit this summer as well as bolted and indoor. I can understand that it adds an extra dimension to the routes but to be "appalled" seems quite extreme. I was appalled when a load of people were shot in Cumbria, but not when someone drilled a 1cm hole in a rock.
In reply to Brian H:
If you mean this thread then it's still there: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
> Earlier in this thread I posted a link to a thread last year ostensibly started by a poster
> unconnected with the Edwards (DaisyClimbing)to which Mark replied listing a number of his new routes
> at Pellitras Point. I pointed out that some of these had been climbed and reported earlier and to
> be fair Mark conceded the point. Unfortunately the thread that I linked to appears to have been deleted.
> unconnected with the Edwards (DaisyClimbing)to which Mark replied listing a number of his new routes
> at Pellitras Point. I pointed out that some of these had been climbed and reported earlier and to
> be fair Mark conceded the point. Unfortunately the thread that I linked to appears to have been deleted.
If you mean this thread then it's still there: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Thanks - I see Mark says that he has done many new routes, from E1 to E9, running along Pellitras Buttress, so that adds a bit more weight to my assumption. I hope Mark will now report his routes to clear it up.
Thanks - I see Mark says that he has done many new routes, from E1 to E9, running along Pellitras Buttress, so that adds a bit more weight to my assumption. I hope Mark will now report his routes to clear it up.
In reply to adsheff:
A comparison would be an athletics fan learning that a world record holder had used drugs. In one sense it hardly matters, but to people who care about athletics/climbing it does. If engineering artificial protection were acceptable then the classic trad climbs would be quickly reduced to the lowest-common-denominator, and stripped of their sould, and there would be no next-generation challenges to aspire to because they'd all have been reduced to well-protected gymnastics. There's a place for hard sport climbing, but there's a vital place for trad also.
> to be "appalled" seems quite extreme. I was appalled when a load of people were shot in Cumbria,
> but not when someone drilled a 1cm hole in a rock.
> but not when someone drilled a 1cm hole in a rock.
A comparison would be an athletics fan learning that a world record holder had used drugs. In one sense it hardly matters, but to people who care about athletics/climbing it does. If engineering artificial protection were acceptable then the classic trad climbs would be quickly reduced to the lowest-common-denominator, and stripped of their sould, and there would be no next-generation challenges to aspire to because they'd all have been reduced to well-protected gymnastics. There's a place for hard sport climbing, but there's a vital place for trad also.
In reply to JonC:
He's had plenty of chance to consider, and had plenty of chance before the majority of the 'rubbishing' began.
> to rubbish Mark before he has a chance to consider again
He's had plenty of chance to consider, and had plenty of chance before the majority of the 'rubbishing' began.
In reply to jonny2vests: I don't think 3 by 3 by 1cm slots would even necessarily be visible from the ground, go and stand at the bottom of any decent sized single pitch route, if you can tell how good all the holds are then i'll be really surprised, i'd be surprised if you could tell where all the holds are. Equally i'd be surprised if you'd be able to see one of these slots, and if you could, that you'd be able to tell it was manufactured, even if it's only say 4 metres from the deck.
In reply to JonC:
googled him and found this from a few years ago
Hardcore Deutsche Aktion in Kernow! (3 December 2003)
Achtung local lads! Our man in West Cornwall, Barnaby Carver reports:
September 2003 saw some significant activity in West Penwith. Strong German climbers Sven Scholz and Heike Arnold have developed a large area of bouldering around Aire Point near Sennen, problems run along the coast from just North of Gwynver Beach to below the crag that is home to such routes as Aireline and Spitfire.
When Sven last visited Cornwall seven years ago, among other things, he made the second ascent of The Marksman E7 6c at Bosigran. This time, concentrating on bouldering, he and Heike climbed around 40 problems ranging in grade from Font 5 to Font 7c+ putting some of these amongst the hardest in West Cornwall. Along with Egbert Dozekal and Christine Preis they plan to make information on the bouldering at Gwynver available in both English and German soon.
Christine's Photographs of the climbing in Cornwall and elsewhere can be found on her website www.christine-preis.de
googled him and found this from a few years ago
Hardcore Deutsche Aktion in Kernow! (3 December 2003)
Achtung local lads! Our man in West Cornwall, Barnaby Carver reports:
September 2003 saw some significant activity in West Penwith. Strong German climbers Sven Scholz and Heike Arnold have developed a large area of bouldering around Aire Point near Sennen, problems run along the coast from just North of Gwynver Beach to below the crag that is home to such routes as Aireline and Spitfire.
When Sven last visited Cornwall seven years ago, among other things, he made the second ascent of The Marksman E7 6c at Bosigran. This time, concentrating on bouldering, he and Heike climbed around 40 problems ranging in grade from Font 5 to Font 7c+ putting some of these amongst the hardest in West Cornwall. Along with Egbert Dozekal and Christine Preis they plan to make information on the bouldering at Gwynver available in both English and German soon.
Christine's Photographs of the climbing in Cornwall and elsewhere can be found on her website www.christine-preis.de
In reply to UKC News: Be gentle if I sound a bit vauge here but in summit (or possibly climber) there was an ausome picture from the BMC international meet where a Japanise climber (sorry if I have the nationallity wrong it is not met to offend) climbed this route avoiding the drilled holds including not placing the cams. 10 out of 10 for boldness and double bonus points for ethics should be awarded. I am not sure if the grade was thought to be effected from the pre-drilled route but it does now show that the route is still there and at present you can use protection as your presonal ethics and bottle take you.
In reply to Big Steve: What is with you "Big Man"? You left a similar shitey wee reply on my thread too. Do you have some vested interest?
In reply to rocktigger: That was 29 Palms, another Edwards route and another controversy.
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=411273
See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=411273
In reply to Tam Stone: explain what my 'shitty reply' was on your thread, and on this thread "wee man"
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The person, whom I know, who bolted this crag has an excellent traditional pedigree, and it was a surprise to me that he bolted this crag at all. The climbs he bolted had mostly been climbed previously as trad routes by my father when he was guiding clients.
We almost expected this coming up at some point, as just about every route Rich has bolted in Spain had already been climbed by Roland!
Sam
> (In reply to Brian H)
>
> >Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation.
>
>cut froma thread a few weeks about about easy lines on sport - >
> >Late reporting/retro-claiming by the Edwards seems to have been a frequent allegation.
>
The person, whom I know, who bolted this crag has an excellent traditional pedigree, and it was a surprise to me that he bolted this crag at all. The climbs he bolted had mostly been climbed previously as trad routes by my father when he was guiding clients.
We almost expected this coming up at some point, as just about every route Rich has bolted in Spain had already been climbed by Roland!
Sam
In reply to stewieatb:
Jedward have alot more credibility
> (In reply to Rich Mayfield)
>
> The real question is, who's the least ethical?
>
> Medwards
> Redwards
> or Jedward?
>
> The real question is, who's the least ethical?
>
> Medwards
> Redwards
> or Jedward?
Jedward have alot more credibility
In reply to Brian H:
It would be great if these routes could be cleared up. I was with Brian when we looked at the line described earlier, and the damage to the top of it was extremely obvious, and clearly not natural.
It would be great if these routes could be cleared up. I was with Brian when we looked at the line described earlier, and the damage to the top of it was extremely obvious, and clearly not natural.
In reply to death drop:
Yes, they are actually good at what they do, badly!!
> (In reply to stewieatb)
> [...]
>
> Jedward have alot more credibility
> [...]
>
> Jedward have alot more credibility
Yes, they are actually good at what they do, badly!!
In reply to UKC News:
Well, I like yummy cream teas aswell..mmm
Well, I like yummy cream teas aswell..mmm
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Another fan of Cornish clotted cream....mmmm
Jam first or last?
Another fan of Cornish clotted cream....mmmm
Jam first or last?
In reply to liz j:
Cream last as the jam is too sweet and it overloads your taste buds when you bite down and the jam hits the roof of your mouth!
tried and tested, trust me...
Sam :0)
Cream last as the jam is too sweet and it overloads your taste buds when you bite down and the jam hits the roof of your mouth!
tried and tested, trust me...
Sam :0)
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Good choice, that's the only way!!
Good choice, that's the only way!!
In reply to Sam Mayfield: if its only 6c+ french climbing then its not that hard really. (obviouse holds abit pumpy)
In reply to thomas m: post that page now please.
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll: you are totally missing the point.
In reply to crankey: Unless I'm missing it, I reckon you are. Check what andy was replying to.
In reply to crankey: i cant find it on the climb website and dont have a scanner, sorry. why dont you email them: neilp@climbmagazine.com
In reply to steve456: ok
In reply to liz j: Jam is thicker than cream so from a construction point of view put the jam down first then cream on top simples.....
In reply to crankey:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zG2ThebS6Xk/Sf39E7gF0YI/AAAAAAAAAmE/Gxy_SGHXKzA/s...
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/4622/images/4622_MEDIUM.jpg
I definitely think cream on top is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zG2ThebS6Xk/Sf39E7gF0YI/AAAAAAAAAmE/Gxy_SGHXKzA/s...
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/4622/images/4622_MEDIUM.jpg
I definitely think cream on top is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
In reply to liz j: wow!!! im feeling you
In reply to crankey:
Are you? That's a bit worrying!!
Are you? That's a bit worrying!!
In reply to liz j: Its a term of mutual understanding dont you know.
In reply to crankey:
Ah, that's ok then. I thought you were talking about my scones for a minute there
Ah, that's ok then. I thought you were talking about my scones for a minute there
In reply to liz j: Look right this isnt a dating site im here for serious issues if any one had lost track ,were talking about what is possibly habitual desacration of our climbing heratage.
WHAT ARE OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF CLIMBERS GOING TO THINK
WHAT ARE OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF CLIMBERS GOING TO THINK
In reply to liz j: Iv got one of them. and iv also been climbing in devon and cornwall for 25 yrs so i hav a very keen interest in this report.
In reply to liz j:
They taste different too, cream on top is Cornish, jam on top is from Devon.
> (In reply to crankey)
>
>
> I definitely think cream on top is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
>
>
> I definitely think cream on top is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
They taste different too, cream on top is Cornish, jam on top is from Devon.
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Maybe,just maybe, he doesn't care.
> (In reply to Big Steve)
>
.>
>
> People just want the truth, as others have said if it was "their route" they would bend over backwards to make people understand what happened, his silence is not helping.
>
> People just want the truth, as others have said if it was "their route" they would bend over backwards to make people understand what happened, his silence is not helping.
>
Maybe,just maybe, he doesn't care.
In reply to bouldery bits:
Oh I think he does..........
Oh I think he does..........
In reply to liz j:
maybe, he literally doesn't care what you, me, or any of the other people who have commented on this think. He says he didn't do it. Really we aren't going to get any more than that.
I touched a green once when I was climbing a Red 5a+. Not really to fussed what you think about that though.
maybe, he literally doesn't care what you, me, or any of the other people who have commented on this think. He says he didn't do it. Really we aren't going to get any more than that.
I touched a green once when I was climbing a Red 5a+. Not really to fussed what you think about that though.
In reply to UKC News: I have followed this post for some time and to be honest am starting to feel it is drawing a bad line under UKC and that it should have a line drawn under it. For reasons that are fairly obvious I would imagine!
In reply to Kaya: But then there'd be two lines under UKC, that'd look weird.
In reply to UKC News: Yes very true it may have two lines from my wording, although feels like it after the cider. But you now what I mean weather you agree or not.
In reply to UKC News: of course its jam on top, cream is much thicker and would displace the jam if applied over the top.
In reply to liz j:
So you've said this with authority, then not expounded on it when asked. Then you waffle about scones.
Thanks for your worthy contribution.
> (In reply to bouldery bits)
> Oh I think he does..........
> Oh I think he does..........
So you've said this with authority, then not expounded on it when asked. Then you waffle about scones.
Thanks for your worthy contribution.
In reply to bentley's biceps:
To be honest, 500 posts later we are nowhere nearer discovering what has happened at Lands End. We might as well talk about cream scones.
To be honest, 500 posts later we are nowhere nearer discovering what has happened at Lands End. We might as well talk about cream scones.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
True, but it was more the "Oh, I think he does...." in a knowing way, which then dropped into inanity seemingly to avoid a reply when questioned.
True, but it was more the "Oh, I think he does...." in a knowing way, which then dropped into inanity seemingly to avoid a reply when questioned.
In reply to UKC News:
I can't be bothered reading all 500 posts here but has anyone other than Nic been there to confirm this?
Is this daily mail journalism? cause a stink and get loads of traffic
Is Nick in the purse of the Cornish Tourist Board? coachloads of climbers arrive at Lands End to shake their heads, stare at the wall, tut, get their "safe" E? tick then buy the "No Bolts in Cornwall" T shirt from the gift shop
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist
I can't be bothered reading all 500 posts here but has anyone other than Nic been there to confirm this?
Is this daily mail journalism? cause a stink and get loads of traffic
Is Nick in the purse of the Cornish Tourist Board? coachloads of climbers arrive at Lands End to shake their heads, stare at the wall, tut, get their "safe" E? tick then buy the "No Bolts in Cornwall" T shirt from the gift shop
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist
In reply to Enty:
No, I don't. Neither do I know any of the journalists from the daily mail. One should always question journalistic articles.
No, I don't. Neither do I know any of the journalists from the daily mail. One should always question journalistic articles.
In reply to bentley's biceps:
I do think that M Edwards must care about what is being written as he has gone from being a prolific poster to non existant since this thread was posted. If he didn't care, he would still be online, even if he wasn't posting on this thread. That is the way I interpret it anyway, even if others don't.
As for my 'inane' comments, for that I apologise, but I am not the only one, and I didn't start it. Anyway, after a hard days work on a friday night, what is wrong with a little lightheartedness, which is all it was, and this is only an internet forum, not a court of law.
I do think that M Edwards must care about what is being written as he has gone from being a prolific poster to non existant since this thread was posted. If he didn't care, he would still be online, even if he wasn't posting on this thread. That is the way I interpret it anyway, even if others don't.
As for my 'inane' comments, for that I apologise, but I am not the only one, and I didn't start it. Anyway, after a hard days work on a friday night, what is wrong with a little lightheartedness, which is all it was, and this is only an internet forum, not a court of law.
In reply to 3leggeddog:
To confirm what?
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I can't be bothered reading all 500 posts here but has anyone other than Nic been there to confirm this?
>
> I can't be bothered reading all 500 posts here but has anyone other than Nic been there to confirm this?
To confirm what?
In reply to jon: i dont know why but your "land of cheese and monkeys" sign off put a smile on my face on a very grey, damp and blustery North Wales morning. i really hope we're not in for another summer of 2 halves. wont get to try Afterburner at this rate sorry for the digression people...
In reply to liz j:
Nope, it's a kangaroo court.
> (In reply to bentley's biceps)
> As for my 'inane' comments, for that I apologise, but I am not the only one, and I didn't start it. Anyway, after a hard days work on a friday night, what is wrong with a little lightheartedness, which is all it was, and this is only an internet forum, not a court of law.
> As for my 'inane' comments, for that I apologise, but I am not the only one, and I didn't start it. Anyway, after a hard days work on a friday night, what is wrong with a little lightheartedness, which is all it was, and this is only an internet forum, not a court of law.
Nope, it's a kangaroo court.
In reply to 3leggeddog:
AFAIK Nic Sellers is just a comitted climber who is also very good, and who doesn't do unethical things like placing bolts where it's not agreed they should be, or chipping holds or making holes in rock for cams, and has got no unexpressed vested interests in anything relating to reporting on the state of this route.
Cheers
Tim
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> No, I don't. Neither do I know any of the journalists from the daily mail. One should always question journalistic articles.
>
> No, I don't. Neither do I know any of the journalists from the daily mail. One should always question journalistic articles.
AFAIK Nic Sellers is just a comitted climber who is also very good, and who doesn't do unethical things like placing bolts where it's not agreed they should be, or chipping holds or making holes in rock for cams, and has got no unexpressed vested interests in anything relating to reporting on the state of this route.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to Timmd: Hey no ones whiter than white you might want to research the route Unjustified at Malham Cove and look into the glue on hold incident before you make some one out to be a saint.
In reply to J Dunne:
Bit of a diiference though John, between a youngster making a mistake - and then, as far as we know, completely reforming - and a forty something(?) habitual re-offender....
Bit of a diiference though John, between a youngster making a mistake - and then, as far as we know, completely reforming - and a forty something(?) habitual re-offender....
In reply to J Dunne:
When Nic was a youth he glued a hold on and was totally open about it, that's different from chipping and denying it, or gluing a hold on, climbing the route, and then claiming there was never a glued on hold in the first place.
> (In reply to Timmd) Hey no ones whiter than white you might want to research the route Unjustified at Malham Cove and look into the glue on hold incident before you make some one out to be a saint.
When Nic was a youth he glued a hold on and was totally open about it, that's different from chipping and denying it, or gluing a hold on, climbing the route, and then claiming there was never a glued on hold in the first place.
In reply to Serpico:
Plus I seem to remember that he had a "mentor" that encouraged the sika hold, if you can believe all you read.
Plus I seem to remember that he had a "mentor" that encouraged the sika hold, if you can believe all you read.
In reply to bentley's biceps: It was a basic statement of fact and not intended to be connected to this fiasco in Cornwall nor a swipe at Nick.
In terms of the incident in Cornwall i think it's far worse than bolting or chipping and who ever has done this has got some real issues deep down.
i think the first step is for some one local to fill the pockets and not to leave it in it's present state.
In terms of the incident in Cornwall i think it's far worse than bolting or chipping and who ever has done this has got some real issues deep down.
i think the first step is for some one local to fill the pockets and not to leave it in it's present state.
In reply to J Dunne:
Filling the pockets doesn't solve anything. They could never be restored to the state they were in. That's the point, to the numpties who don't get it and the eejit who did it, for crying out loud what have you achieved other than making yourself look like a right doughball?
PS Feel free to insert stronger abusive terms that I used previously but had to adjust due to moderator intervention.
> (In reply to bentley's biceps) i think the first step is for some one local to fill the pockets and not to leave it in it's present state.
Filling the pockets doesn't solve anything. They could never be restored to the state they were in. That's the point, to the numpties who don't get it and the eejit who did it, for crying out loud what have you achieved other than making yourself look like a right doughball?
PS Feel free to insert stronger abusive terms that I used previously but had to adjust due to moderator intervention.
In reply to aln:
In this post and your original one you are assuming that there were pockets originally, and that they have been improved. What's the basis for that assumption, as oppose to them being entirely created? Granite does not usually feature pockets, and note the even spacing of the slots.
> Filling the pockets doesn't solve anything. They could never be restored to the state they were in.
In this post and your original one you are assuming that there were pockets originally, and that they have been improved. What's the basis for that assumption, as oppose to them being entirely created? Granite does not usually feature pockets, and note the even spacing of the slots.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
A bit unfair to mention a post that's been removed.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm commenting on a thead that's about pockets that have allegedly been "improved".
> (In reply to aln)
>
> [...]
>
> In this post and your original one you are assuming that there were pockets originally, and that they have been improved. What's the basis for that assumption, as oppose to them being entirely created? Granite does not usually feature pockets, and note the even spacing of the slots.
>
> [...]
>
> In this post and your original one you are assuming that there were pockets originally, and that they have been improved. What's the basis for that assumption, as oppose to them being entirely created? Granite does not usually feature pockets, and note the even spacing of the slots.
A bit unfair to mention a post that's been removed.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm commenting on a thead that's about pockets that have allegedly been "improved".
In reply to Coel Hellier: And what? You think they they could be restored to the way they were before the "improvement" Go do it. I think that if someone did do the "improvement" then they're a big smelly bum. Seriously, what does anyone gain by this kind of thing?
In reply to aln: Surely filling in the holes would be easy, just a bit of crushed up granite and glue rammed in.
Will
Will
In reply to UKC News: As I posted previously, probably the only people capable of restoring the "pockets" to their "original" state are Medwards
"I knew about this wall since the early 80's... at the time the smallest cam available were friend one's, and they are far too big for the tiny pockets... I had a look and found that the smaller cams now available do just about fit in the shallow pockets..." - quote from Climber
or the person who enlarged them.
Unless anyone else had a look pre-drilling?
"I knew about this wall since the early 80's... at the time the smallest cam available were friend one's, and they are far too big for the tiny pockets... I had a look and found that the smaller cams now available do just about fit in the shallow pockets..." - quote from Climber
or the person who enlarged them.
Unless anyone else had a look pre-drilling?
In reply to Chris H:
Yes but even if they were actually restored to what they did look like (which possibly only Mark knows), you couldn't use them as actual gear placements I would think. Therefore, I think J Dunne is right and someone needs to make a statement and simply fill them in, rather than let them stay there and gain some sort of acceptance over time.
Yes but even if they were actually restored to what they did look like (which possibly only Mark knows), you couldn't use them as actual gear placements I would think. Therefore, I think J Dunne is right and someone needs to make a statement and simply fill them in, rather than let them stay there and gain some sort of acceptance over time.
In reply to aln:
Sorry, didn't think that was an issue given that you had: "Feel free to insert stronger abusive terms that I used previously but had to adjust due to moderator intervention."
The idea that original pockets were improved is only one possibility. The other possibility is that the pockets were entirely created; if so restoring to a blank wall is easy enough.
> A bit unfair to mention a post that's been removed.
Sorry, didn't think that was an issue given that you had: "Feel free to insert stronger abusive terms that I used previously but had to adjust due to moderator intervention."
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm commenting on a thead that's about pockets that have allegedly been "improved".
The idea that original pockets were improved is only one possibility. The other possibility is that the pockets were entirely created; if so restoring to a blank wall is easy enough.
In reply to JonC:
I'm down the South-West in August. If somebody hasn't already, I'll fill them in with sika and granite. I have experience in this field.
> (In reply to Chris H)
>
> Yes but even if they were actually restored to what they did look like (which possibly only Mark knows), you couldn't use them as actual gear placements I would think. Therefore, I think J Dunne is right and someone needs to make a statement and simply fill them in, rather than let them stay there and gain some sort of acceptance over time.
>
> Yes but even if they were actually restored to what they did look like (which possibly only Mark knows), you couldn't use them as actual gear placements I would think. Therefore, I think J Dunne is right and someone needs to make a statement and simply fill them in, rather than let them stay there and gain some sort of acceptance over time.
I'm down the South-West in August. If somebody hasn't already, I'll fill them in with sika and granite. I have experience in this field.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Ok Mick, what do suggest the guidebook says about the route though?
In reply to Al Evans:
It can say what it wants. Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Ok Mick, what do suggest the guidebook says about the route though?
It can say what it wants. Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
But Rockfax are surely working on that? Just imagine the sat-nav guidebook giving instructions as you climb: "go left to a good hold where there's a Rock-3 placement".
> Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.
But Rockfax are surely working on that? Just imagine the sat-nav guidebook giving instructions as you climb: "go left to a good hold where there's a Rock-3 placement".
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
They speak through the written word.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> It can say what it wants. Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.
> [...]
>
> It can say what it wants. Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.
They speak through the written word.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Perhaps Mark E can relead the route afterwards to demonstrate how it's done without the drilled holes and to reassure everyone regarding the nature of his first ascent.
> (In reply to JonC)
> [...]
>
> I'm down the South-West in August. If somebody hasn't already, I'll fill them in with sika and granite. I have experience in this field.
> [...]
>
> I'm down the South-West in August. If somebody hasn't already, I'll fill them in with sika and granite. I have experience in this field.
Perhaps Mark E can relead the route afterwards to demonstrate how it's done without the drilled holes and to reassure everyone regarding the nature of his first ascent.
In reply to bentley's biceps:
I can see why you'd post that, all I can personally say about the Edwards is that a joint letter was publish in On The Edge magazine by some Spanish climbers and climbing organisations saying how much they didn't like what the Edwards had been doing in Spain, with regards to making routes with ENP placements, and drilling pairs of holes to make thread runners, and how one of them had said something along the lines of appreciating being in Spain because they could do things which they couldn't get away with in the UK, to do with altering the rock.
Cheers
Tim
> (In reply to liz j)
> [...]
>
>
> Nope, it's a kangaroo court.
> [...]
>
>
> Nope, it's a kangaroo court.
I can see why you'd post that, all I can personally say about the Edwards is that a joint letter was publish in On The Edge magazine by some Spanish climbers and climbing organisations saying how much they didn't like what the Edwards had been doing in Spain, with regards to making routes with ENP placements, and drilling pairs of holes to make thread runners, and how one of them had said something along the lines of appreciating being in Spain because they could do things which they couldn't get away with in the UK, to do with altering the rock.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to Timmd:
PS, having said that, it would be a shame if Mark Edwards really hadn't altered the route and somebody else had.
Cheers
Tim
PS, having said that, it would be a shame if Mark Edwards really hadn't altered the route and somebody else had.
Cheers
Tim
So what's the lowdown regarding these pictures on another hard SW route:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150202
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150200
Is that vandalism in the form of hold improvement or a botched repair job on some chipped holds?
Francois
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150202
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150200
Is that vandalism in the form of hold improvement or a botched repair job on some chipped holds?
Francois
In reply to francois: Good god - thats awful either way....
In reply to francois:
Wtf! What a mess, what the hell is that supposed to have achieved? Those holds look like they were probably pretty good in the first place.
What the hell is going on?
Wtf! What a mess, what the hell is that supposed to have achieved? Those holds look like they were probably pretty good in the first place.
What the hell is going on?
In reply to nomisb: looks like a UN enforced trade embargo with West Penwith might be required. I suggest Hilti's and Sica resin are put on the list of banned substances!
In reply to UKC News:
Throughout this thread there have been some questions regarding ‘what happened’ between ME ascent and Nic’s repeat. I can shed some light…
The February 2010 issue of Climb magazine featured a full page article and picture of ME’s new route ‘The First and Last’ on Penwith Wall at Lands End graded E8 6b/c and, as I live in Cornwall, I was intrigued. By chance, the following weekend, Miles Gibson was visiting from Sheffield and on the afternoon of Friday 12th February we tried the line.
We both flashed the route on top rope and a number of characteristics of the route were immediately obvious:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
2) More or less evenly spaced throughout the hard climbing were blatantly drilled slots for small cams
3) The climbing was significantly easier than the grade suggested.
Penwith Wall is unusual for granite because it is covered with many natural pocket features but these are measured in millimetres and totally different in size and style to the clearly man-made slots – to suggest that the cam placements we discovered were natural is ludicrous.
Miles and I were keen to lead the route then and there but because the route requires x4 small cams in just two sizes, we didn’t have sufficient cams with us (for the record there is a fifth drilled cam placement at the crux but it is poor and it is much easier to quickly pull through to better holds than to mess about placing it).
Both Miles and I were disgusted by the drilling but felt it was better to repeat the route before commenting on the vandalism.
A few weeks later I was back on the route, this time belayed by my girlfriend and with the intention of leading the route now that I had a sufficient number of the correct sized cams (many thanks Black Diamond!). I had a total mental meltdown on the lead and ended up slumped on a cam (err… many thanks again Black Diamond!). It had been about a decade since I had headpointed a route and although my body was still capable my mind wasn’t having any of it. I decided to forget about the route for the time being, do lots of onsighting and come back to it later in the year.
At the beginning of July, our friends Nic & Katherine Sellers was visiting and you know the story from here…
The suggestion that ‘climbers unknown’ have been stalking ME for over two decades across international boarders to vandalise his routes after his ‘first ascents’ (which are often not publicised widely) is delusional.
The fact that ME has not provided high resolution images of the first ascent (these obviously exist, having been featured in Climb, and could be used to compare the approximate location and size of the cams used by both ME and Nic) is odd. Just think how you would react if accused in this way? Would you not rush to provide the evidence that may prove your innocence? Finally, think how your friends would react to this kind of criticism? The lack of the ‘seven witnesses’ testimony only hardens my suspicions.
Unfortunately, the saga of the wanton vandalism of Cornish sea cliffs doesn’t end there.
On Sunday 11th July I visited Folly Cove with Chris Hutchins (another visiting climbing friend from Sheffield) to check out another new ME E8 reported in Climb magazine earlier in 2010.
Chris has written this about the day:
------------------------------------------------------------
I went climbing with Shane Ohly on Saturday July 10th then on Sunday 11th we went to check out Redemption at Folly Cove. The route was clear from the description in the brief note in Climb magazine so we abseiled down the line and were disappointed to discover that there were three sica holds on the route. My personal opinion is that the use of sica on these holds was unnecessary. The first of these three holds (Sica Hold 1) is a jug which could have had stress cracks around it or not but has adequate holds just above and below it and another jug not far above this. The second hold (Sica Hold 2) has a smooth flat positive edge created by the
sica. The underlying nature of this hold is impossible to ascertain but there are smaller alternatives that would not make the route much harder than it already is. The third hold (Sica Hold 3) is an obvious Gaston and crucial to the top sequence. If this was to fall off a harder sequence using the much smaller hold below it and harder moves to holds above it would be necessary. It would however still be climbable but not necessarily by myself. It saddens me that sica was used on this route either to maintain the route in its current state or improve it from its original form as ultimately I feel it was unnecessary.
These thoughts only really formed later and we focused on climbing the route that day. We both top roped the route twice each and with a rapidly approaching tide I quickly led the route with the gear we pre placed earlier but still left Shane with the water splashing at his feet by the time I topped out. The route felt well protected for the grade with good gear evenly spaced up the gently overhanging wall. A climber with lots of fitness and good, quick gear finding and placing skills should find it a good onsight target.
I suspect this might create a further debate but I have tried to be as objective as possible with my comments and information and tried not to cast aspersions. However defamation of the rock is bad and should be questioned.
I am including attachments of the three holds in question, which were taken on abseil after the ascent. The second hold needed cleaning to expose the sica from the chalk we had been using hence the wet appearance (a little bit of spit on my brush). I have a few more but they are not as clear as these were all taken on my mobile phone.
------------------------------------------------------------
END
I understand that UKC have contacted ME about the sica holds and he has admitted that he placed the sica to ‘stabilise’ the rock.
This makes no sense to me as the entire route is friable and should an original hold have broken off at the location of Sica Hold 1 and 2, there are alternative holds close by and there would be little change in difficulty. Sica Hold 3 is crucial to current easiest sequence but there is so much sica around it, that it is impossible to tell whether the feature has been stabilised or created. Without any doubt the top sequence could be climbed without this hold; again the sica is unnecessary.
My overall opinion is that the sica has been used to reduce the general difficulties of the route. Another line that could have been climbed by a more talented climber has been lost.
It is interesting to note that adjacent to Redemption is Hallow Man, another notorious ME route (because of the use of a bolt - rotting rust stain still clearly visible - and other fixed protection). This route has also had sica added to a number of holds.
Sica Hold 1: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150200
Sica Hold 2: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
Sica Hold 3: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150202
Shane Ohly, Cornwall
Throughout this thread there have been some questions regarding ‘what happened’ between ME ascent and Nic’s repeat. I can shed some light…
The February 2010 issue of Climb magazine featured a full page article and picture of ME’s new route ‘The First and Last’ on Penwith Wall at Lands End graded E8 6b/c and, as I live in Cornwall, I was intrigued. By chance, the following weekend, Miles Gibson was visiting from Sheffield and on the afternoon of Friday 12th February we tried the line.
We both flashed the route on top rope and a number of characteristics of the route were immediately obvious:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
2) More or less evenly spaced throughout the hard climbing were blatantly drilled slots for small cams
3) The climbing was significantly easier than the grade suggested.
Penwith Wall is unusual for granite because it is covered with many natural pocket features but these are measured in millimetres and totally different in size and style to the clearly man-made slots – to suggest that the cam placements we discovered were natural is ludicrous.
Miles and I were keen to lead the route then and there but because the route requires x4 small cams in just two sizes, we didn’t have sufficient cams with us (for the record there is a fifth drilled cam placement at the crux but it is poor and it is much easier to quickly pull through to better holds than to mess about placing it).
Both Miles and I were disgusted by the drilling but felt it was better to repeat the route before commenting on the vandalism.
A few weeks later I was back on the route, this time belayed by my girlfriend and with the intention of leading the route now that I had a sufficient number of the correct sized cams (many thanks Black Diamond!). I had a total mental meltdown on the lead and ended up slumped on a cam (err… many thanks again Black Diamond!). It had been about a decade since I had headpointed a route and although my body was still capable my mind wasn’t having any of it. I decided to forget about the route for the time being, do lots of onsighting and come back to it later in the year.
At the beginning of July, our friends Nic & Katherine Sellers was visiting and you know the story from here…
The suggestion that ‘climbers unknown’ have been stalking ME for over two decades across international boarders to vandalise his routes after his ‘first ascents’ (which are often not publicised widely) is delusional.
The fact that ME has not provided high resolution images of the first ascent (these obviously exist, having been featured in Climb, and could be used to compare the approximate location and size of the cams used by both ME and Nic) is odd. Just think how you would react if accused in this way? Would you not rush to provide the evidence that may prove your innocence? Finally, think how your friends would react to this kind of criticism? The lack of the ‘seven witnesses’ testimony only hardens my suspicions.
Unfortunately, the saga of the wanton vandalism of Cornish sea cliffs doesn’t end there.
On Sunday 11th July I visited Folly Cove with Chris Hutchins (another visiting climbing friend from Sheffield) to check out another new ME E8 reported in Climb magazine earlier in 2010.
Chris has written this about the day:
------------------------------------------------------------
I went climbing with Shane Ohly on Saturday July 10th then on Sunday 11th we went to check out Redemption at Folly Cove. The route was clear from the description in the brief note in Climb magazine so we abseiled down the line and were disappointed to discover that there were three sica holds on the route. My personal opinion is that the use of sica on these holds was unnecessary. The first of these three holds (Sica Hold 1) is a jug which could have had stress cracks around it or not but has adequate holds just above and below it and another jug not far above this. The second hold (Sica Hold 2) has a smooth flat positive edge created by the
sica. The underlying nature of this hold is impossible to ascertain but there are smaller alternatives that would not make the route much harder than it already is. The third hold (Sica Hold 3) is an obvious Gaston and crucial to the top sequence. If this was to fall off a harder sequence using the much smaller hold below it and harder moves to holds above it would be necessary. It would however still be climbable but not necessarily by myself. It saddens me that sica was used on this route either to maintain the route in its current state or improve it from its original form as ultimately I feel it was unnecessary.
These thoughts only really formed later and we focused on climbing the route that day. We both top roped the route twice each and with a rapidly approaching tide I quickly led the route with the gear we pre placed earlier but still left Shane with the water splashing at his feet by the time I topped out. The route felt well protected for the grade with good gear evenly spaced up the gently overhanging wall. A climber with lots of fitness and good, quick gear finding and placing skills should find it a good onsight target.
I suspect this might create a further debate but I have tried to be as objective as possible with my comments and information and tried not to cast aspersions. However defamation of the rock is bad and should be questioned.
I am including attachments of the three holds in question, which were taken on abseil after the ascent. The second hold needed cleaning to expose the sica from the chalk we had been using hence the wet appearance (a little bit of spit on my brush). I have a few more but they are not as clear as these were all taken on my mobile phone.
------------------------------------------------------------
END
I understand that UKC have contacted ME about the sica holds and he has admitted that he placed the sica to ‘stabilise’ the rock.
This makes no sense to me as the entire route is friable and should an original hold have broken off at the location of Sica Hold 1 and 2, there are alternative holds close by and there would be little change in difficulty. Sica Hold 3 is crucial to current easiest sequence but there is so much sica around it, that it is impossible to tell whether the feature has been stabilised or created. Without any doubt the top sequence could be climbed without this hold; again the sica is unnecessary.
My overall opinion is that the sica has been used to reduce the general difficulties of the route. Another line that could have been climbed by a more talented climber has been lost.
It is interesting to note that adjacent to Redemption is Hallow Man, another notorious ME route (because of the use of a bolt - rotting rust stain still clearly visible - and other fixed protection). This route has also had sica added to a number of holds.
Sica Hold 1: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150200
Sica Hold 2: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
Sica Hold 3: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150202
Shane Ohly, Cornwall
In reply to shane ohly:
So the stalker has a pot of Sika AND a Hilti. Bizarre the lengths some folk will go to...
So the stalker has a pot of Sika AND a Hilti. Bizarre the lengths some folk will go to...
In reply to shane ohly:
Hmm.
Is Hallow Man the one with the roof and the accidentally drilled hold over it, mentioned in Chris Hamper's (or was it Chris Gore's?) Red Rose article some 20 years ago, which I was fondly recalling earlier on? That was at Folly Cove, I seem to recall.
jcm
Hmm.
Is Hallow Man the one with the roof and the accidentally drilled hold over it, mentioned in Chris Hamper's (or was it Chris Gore's?) Red Rose article some 20 years ago, which I was fondly recalling earlier on? That was at Folly Cove, I seem to recall.
jcm
In reply to shane ohly:
Thanks for that Shane.
I can confirm that I have requested Mark send the photo, and that Mark has acknowledged that the sica on Redemption was his although he claims it was essential to stop the holds falling apart.
Alan
Thanks for that Shane.
I can confirm that I have requested Mark send the photo, and that Mark has acknowledged that the sica on Redemption was his although he claims it was essential to stop the holds falling apart.
Alan
In reply to shane ohly:
Thanks Shane. Surely the time has come for this vandalism to stop. Tthe perpetrator should go public and defend his/her actions. You may reject the BMC's policy on the use of bolts on Cornish sea-cliffs, you may justify to yourself the need to "improve" protection or holds, you may even genuinely believe that you are performing a public service. You're not. The fact is that you are destroying one of the finest adventure climbing areas in the world and your actions fly in the face of a consensus that must be obvious to you if you've read through this thread.
Please stop now, before this whole affair gets even more ugly. 40 years ago a guy fraudulently claimed a series of ascents at Gogarth. The climbing community at the time closed ranks in order to put a halt to his potentially dangerous obsession. At least he left the rock alone. Your actions, whoever you are, are even worse, since you leave a mark that cannot be adequately repaired wherever you choose to wield your chisel or drill.
I have a sneaking admiration for the mavericks in climbing, they go with the territory, but this goes way beyond the acceptable.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
>
> Unfortunately, the saga of the wanton vandalism of Cornish sea cliffs doesn’t end there.
Thanks Shane. Surely the time has come for this vandalism to stop. Tthe perpetrator should go public and defend his/her actions. You may reject the BMC's policy on the use of bolts on Cornish sea-cliffs, you may justify to yourself the need to "improve" protection or holds, you may even genuinely believe that you are performing a public service. You're not. The fact is that you are destroying one of the finest adventure climbing areas in the world and your actions fly in the face of a consensus that must be obvious to you if you've read through this thread.
Please stop now, before this whole affair gets even more ugly. 40 years ago a guy fraudulently claimed a series of ascents at Gogarth. The climbing community at the time closed ranks in order to put a halt to his potentially dangerous obsession. At least he left the rock alone. Your actions, whoever you are, are even worse, since you leave a mark that cannot be adequately repaired wherever you choose to wield your chisel or drill.
I have a sneaking admiration for the mavericks in climbing, they go with the territory, but this goes way beyond the acceptable.
In reply to shane ohly: theyve done a really neat job on Hold 3, nice
In reply to UKC News:
Its very sad to see that this practice is taking place especially in the cliffs of cornwall. This practice of using silca is just disgusting, I am unable to lead harder than HVS and I am happy with that I dont try to lower routes to my level, What on earth gives others the right to do just that.
I have been watching this thread from the begining and have reserved my judgement for who I thought was responsible. cheers shane for the photos they were enlightening, unfortunatly.
James
Its very sad to see that this practice is taking place especially in the cliffs of cornwall. This practice of using silca is just disgusting, I am unable to lead harder than HVS and I am happy with that I dont try to lower routes to my level, What on earth gives others the right to do just that.
I have been watching this thread from the begining and have reserved my judgement for who I thought was responsible. cheers shane for the photos they were enlightening, unfortunatly.
James
In reply to Timmd:
I certainly don't disagree with where the suspicion firmly sits, the kangaroo comment was a direct response to Liz J's reasoning for helping bring scones into the debate.
> (In reply to bentley's biceps)
> [...]
>
> I can see why you'd post that, all I can personally say about the Edwards is that a joint letter was publish in On The Edge magazine by some Spanish climbers and climbing organisations saying how much they didn't like what the Edwards had been doing in Spain, with regards to making routes with ENP placements, and drilling pairs of holes to make thread runners, and how one of them had said something along the lines of appreciating being in Spain because they could do things which they couldn't get away with in the UK, to do with altering the rock.
>
> Cheers
> Tim
> [...]
>
> I can see why you'd post that, all I can personally say about the Edwards is that a joint letter was publish in On The Edge magazine by some Spanish climbers and climbing organisations saying how much they didn't like what the Edwards had been doing in Spain, with regards to making routes with ENP placements, and drilling pairs of holes to make thread runners, and how one of them had said something along the lines of appreciating being in Spain because they could do things which they couldn't get away with in the UK, to do with altering the rock.
>
> Cheers
> Tim
I certainly don't disagree with where the suspicion firmly sits, the kangaroo comment was a direct response to Liz J's reasoning for helping bring scones into the debate.
In reply to UKC News: I'm no longer suspicious, I'm pretty much convinced...
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:
What with the complete and utter total lack of evidence put forth since the first post?
What with the complete and utter total lack of evidence put forth since the first post?
In reply to Kid Spatula: I thought Shane's post added something. He seems to be known and has a posting history indicating in depth knowledge, I can't see any reason to doubt his account.
I'd say that's as good as it's gonna get.
I'd say that's as good as it's gonna get.
In reply to UKC News:
The photos of the rock 'repairs' - admitted to by ME - demonstrate a total disregard of what is acceptable on British rock and an alarming mind-set. They also give a pointer to the truth behind the drilled slots controversy. What was it Alan Austin said (something like) - 'I don't think the crags and mountains should be a stage on which ruthless men can pursue their ambitions'?
The photos of the rock 'repairs' - admitted to by ME - demonstrate a total disregard of what is acceptable on British rock and an alarming mind-set. They also give a pointer to the truth behind the drilled slots controversy. What was it Alan Austin said (something like) - 'I don't think the crags and mountains should be a stage on which ruthless men can pursue their ambitions'?
In reply to Kid Spatula:
There's not been direct evidence but a load of circumstantial evidence.
> (In reply to willworkforfoodjnr)
>
> What with the complete and utter total lack of evidence put forth since the first post?
>
> What with the complete and utter total lack of evidence put forth since the first post?
There's not been direct evidence but a load of circumstantial evidence.
In reply to Pekkie: The argument with regards to repairs is also in contrast to British ethics. None of the ascensionist of Indian Face deemed it a good idea to glue those small holds to the rock because they were fragile and it would make the route safer. I don't care what level you climb at, this is just not acceptable.
In reply to francois:
agreed. climb the rock in the state it's in.
What about glueing holds back on classic routes BTW? I am personally also against this, but I don't climb at a level it would matter.
agreed. climb the rock in the state it's in.
What about glueing holds back on classic routes BTW? I am personally also against this, but I don't climb at a level it would matter.
> (In reply to shane ohly)
>
> Thanks for that Shane.
>
> I can confirm that I have requested Mark send the photo, and that Mark has acknowledged that the sica on Redemption was his although he claims it was essential to stop the holds falling apart.
>
> Alan
>
> Thanks for that Shane.
>
> I can confirm that I have requested Mark send the photo, and that Mark has acknowledged that the sica on Redemption was his although he claims it was essential to stop the holds falling apart.
>
> Alan
there is never a case for smearing shit all over a beautiful natural granite sea cliff or for that matter any other cliff , if the holds are deteriorating to the point of collapse then effectively they aren't there to be climbed on. The area of west penwith is a designated area of outstanding natural beauty and climbers have no right to deface alter,add to or destroy any of it to further personal goals. This kind of action will only make future access issues more difficult for us to persue, if as a group we are perceived to be vandalistic and selfishly uncaring about the impact(including visual) of our actions on other users of the area. The Edward's over a period exceeding 30 yrs have aggressively flown in the face of justifiable critisism from the small local climbing comunity and done what the F>>>K they like as long it suits them to do it, up to and including attempted physical violence against a local CC guidebook author who disagreed with them , their litter of rusting pegs, bolts, drilled holes, in situ slings, chipped holds etc is spread on cliffs from st ives to penzance , not to mention their theft of genuine first ascents done by others in good style and faith , what is this crap about not reporting routes at the time so you can retro claim any route at a later date?? the list of routes chipped and created though probably not free climbed on the first ascent in this area is huge and includes such classics as masterdon, rock dancer, day tripper, last dancer, atlantic ocean wall, stone boom, cool diamonds, isis etc etc etc etc ad inf, not satisfied with the UK they then exported their ideas to inflict on the Spanish hills, anyone seen the mess that the echo crags are in after their attentions? I know these two think they are special but it realy is time something was done about their behavior, perhaps the BMC should get involved as they licence or qualify them to operate as guides, effectively representing the organisation both at home and abroad. It seems to me that there should be some sanction for "bringing the game into disrepute" a act irespective of anything else they are guilty of.
egg
In reply to francois:
As a general rule you are right. I've filled in chipped holds in a quarry and in one case put some cement behind a loose hold on a popular regularly solo'd route for safety reasons but we took great pains to try and blend the repairs in. You can't just ab off with a sika glue gun and spread it everywhere.
> The argument with regards to repairs is also in contrast to British ethics.
As a general rule you are right. I've filled in chipped holds in a quarry and in one case put some cement behind a loose hold on a popular regularly solo'd route for safety reasons but we took great pains to try and blend the repairs in. You can't just ab off with a sika glue gun and spread it everywhere.
In reply to francois:
Just a s a matter of interest its probably worht pointing out that re-enforcing holds with Sikka and repclacing holds that have come off is not unusual on many (the majority?) of English sport climbing crags.
> The argument with regards to repairs is also in contrast to British ethics. None of the ascensionist of Indian Face deemed it a good idea to glue those small holds to the rock because they were fragile and it would make the route safer. I don't care what level you climb at, this is just not acceptable.
Just a s a matter of interest its probably worht pointing out that re-enforcing holds with Sikka and repclacing holds that have come off is not unusual on many (the majority?) of English sport climbing crags.
In reply to Tyler:
But the Cornish sea cliffs are not sport climbing crags. If the holds were not good enough to be used, then alternative holds should have been, and if the first ascensionist wasn't good anough to use these alternative holds for their ascent, they should have left the climb for someone with the ability to climb it. That is surely the spirit of trad climbing in this country. As it is, the climb has been brought down to the level, whatever that is, of Medwards and had robbed someone more talented of a first ascent.
But the Cornish sea cliffs are not sport climbing crags. If the holds were not good enough to be used, then alternative holds should have been, and if the first ascensionist wasn't good anough to use these alternative holds for their ascent, they should have left the climb for someone with the ability to climb it. That is surely the spirit of trad climbing in this country. As it is, the climb has been brought down to the level, whatever that is, of Medwards and had robbed someone more talented of a first ascent.
In reply to UKC News:
As above ^ This has to stop. I can't believe anyone could smear that stuff on the cliffs, improve holds and claim a route? It's blatant vandalism. I can understand, if not agree, if someone put it behind a loose hold to try and stabilise it on a classic route but that is a complete mess. Regardless of the poor climbing legacy it leaves, the impact this has on a world famous area of outstanding beauty is incredibly sad and selfish.
The general legacy leaves me finding it increasingly hard to believe anyone else could have drilled the slots on First and Last Wall, yet I find it quite bizarre that Mark would admit to the Sica mess and not drilling the cam slots?
As above ^ This has to stop. I can't believe anyone could smear that stuff on the cliffs, improve holds and claim a route? It's blatant vandalism. I can understand, if not agree, if someone put it behind a loose hold to try and stabilise it on a classic route but that is a complete mess. Regardless of the poor climbing legacy it leaves, the impact this has on a world famous area of outstanding beauty is incredibly sad and selfish.
The general legacy leaves me finding it increasingly hard to believe anyone else could have drilled the slots on First and Last Wall, yet I find it quite bizarre that Mark would admit to the Sica mess and not drilling the cam slots?
In reply to eggburt1952:
Did Day Tripper several years back, and the description in the 92 guide is very odd. Supposedly done in 2 pitches. 110 ft 6a followed by 20 ft 4c.
Only when you do the route (which is very good) there's no belay at that point. I don't mean a poor belay either, I mean nothing (no gear whatsoever). I'm assuming that the description in the guide was taken from the first ascensionists' write up, which therefore made me doubt it at the time. Oh, and I didn't even know that it was the Edwards' route at that time.
Did Day Tripper several years back, and the description in the 92 guide is very odd. Supposedly done in 2 pitches. 110 ft 6a followed by 20 ft 4c.
Only when you do the route (which is very good) there's no belay at that point. I don't mean a poor belay either, I mean nothing (no gear whatsoever). I'm assuming that the description in the guide was taken from the first ascensionists' write up, which therefore made me doubt it at the time. Oh, and I didn't even know that it was the Edwards' route at that time.
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
Maybe the belay bolts were removed??
As for claiming first ascents, clean and onsight, maybe this video may shed a little light onto the style of ascent. Although not a film of the first ascent, I do wonder why the camera pans to the belayer everytime a piece of gear is placed, or the film is edited at those points. I came to my own conclusion on that, you make yours.
http://www.youtube.com/user/climbcompasswest#p/a/u/1/hcybCYZzybc
Maybe the belay bolts were removed??
As for claiming first ascents, clean and onsight, maybe this video may shed a little light onto the style of ascent. Although not a film of the first ascent, I do wonder why the camera pans to the belayer everytime a piece of gear is placed, or the film is edited at those points. I came to my own conclusion on that, you make yours.
http://www.youtube.com/user/climbcompasswest#p/a/u/1/hcybCYZzybc
In reply to Tyler: thanks, I was not aware of that as I mainly do boulder problems or trad routes. I still think that's not acceptable on sea cliff routes though.
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
I did Day Tripper in September 2001, and found a perfectly good belay (Friend 3) at the point described in the guidebook. I had it backed up with a fixed rope, so as to avoid the fragile finish. Either you missed something, or the route's changed since I did it.
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> Did Day Tripper several years back, ..... there's no belay at that point.
>
> Did Day Tripper several years back, ..... there's no belay at that point.
I did Day Tripper in September 2001, and found a perfectly good belay (Friend 3) at the point described in the guidebook. I had it backed up with a fixed rope, so as to avoid the fragile finish. Either you missed something, or the route's changed since I did it.
In reply to Andy2:
Fair enough, quite possible I didn't find it, though my cowardice levels are such that I find most stuff. I did it in 2006 and the rock seemed very friable and broken at that point. I looked pretty hard.
Fair enough, quite possible I didn't find it, though my cowardice levels are such that I find most stuff. I did it in 2006 and the rock seemed very friable and broken at that point. I looked pretty hard.
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
Hi Hugh.
Did Day Tripper in the mid 90's and remember the top pitch being VERY crumbly and pulled out on ab rope, but have no recollection of belay being poor so maybe it has changed.
Hope you are well ? Cheers Mark
Hi Hugh.
Did Day Tripper in the mid 90's and remember the top pitch being VERY crumbly and pulled out on ab rope, but have no recollection of belay being poor so maybe it has changed.
Hope you are well ? Cheers Mark
In reply to Tyler:
Maybe we should think again about that too. Especially if it leads people to think it's generally acceptable.
> (In reply to francois)
>
> [...]
>
> Just a s a matter of interest its probably worht pointing out that re-enforcing holds with Sikka and repclacing holds that have come off is not unusual on many (the majority?) of English sport climbing crags.
>
> [...]
>
> Just a s a matter of interest its probably worht pointing out that re-enforcing holds with Sikka and repclacing holds that have come off is not unusual on many (the majority?) of English sport climbing crags.
Maybe we should think again about that too. Especially if it leads people to think it's generally acceptable.
In reply to Pekkie:
You must be very confident that you're making things safer.
> (In reply to francois)
> [...]
>
> in one case put some cement behind a loose hold on a popular regularly solo'd route for safety reasons
> [...]
>
> in one case put some cement behind a loose hold on a popular regularly solo'd route for safety reasons
You must be very confident that you're making things safer.
In reply to Mark Glaister - Assistant Editor:
Hi Mark,
the rock near the top may well have deteriorated or I may have simply been pooping myself. I was also probably getting carried away with the general witch hunt fervor after egg had suggested there was some doubt around the original ascent.
So just to clarify, they're probably innocent on this one. But, guilty on everything else,
cheers Hugh
Hi Mark,
the rock near the top may well have deteriorated or I may have simply been pooping myself. I was also probably getting carried away with the general witch hunt fervor after egg had suggested there was some doubt around the original ascent.
So just to clarify, they're probably innocent on this one. But, guilty on everything else,
cheers Hugh
In reply to Tyler:
And this is acceptable? Are there any ethics in sport climbing, having done very little and living in cornwall I assumed that apart from using bolts the ethis were the same! obviously I am mistaken...
> Just a s a matter of interest its probably worht pointing out that re-enforcing holds with Sikka and repclacing holds that have come off is not unusual on many (the majority?) of English sport climbing crags.
And this is acceptable? Are there any ethics in sport climbing, having done very little and living in cornwall I assumed that apart from using bolts the ethis were the same! obviously I am mistaken...
In reply to rockjedi12345: no, youre not mistaken. imagine this though: 3 star, all-time classic, historic route loses crucial crux hold rendering it unclimable or at least significantly altering the grade.
options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
keep in mind this will often happen on otherwise stable and compact rock so there isnt the general 'its falling down anyway' thing. for what its worth, id say that anyone into sport is just as zealous about the integrity of the holds / ascent as any trad climber.
options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
keep in mind this will often happen on otherwise stable and compact rock so there isnt the general 'its falling down anyway' thing. for what its worth, id say that anyone into sport is just as zealous about the integrity of the holds / ascent as any trad climber.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Well it was my call, backed up by the opinions of several local climbers. It was loose but couldn't be got out at that time. I recently trundled a BS (belayer-slaying) block off a popular lancashire quarry route. You would have needed a lot of glue to make that one safe. So it's horses for courses. Someone I know was killed by a loose block while standing at the bottom of a route so I always err on the side of caution.
> >
> You must be very confident that you're making things safer.
> You must be very confident that you're making things safer.
Well it was my call, backed up by the opinions of several local climbers. It was loose but couldn't be got out at that time. I recently trundled a BS (belayer-slaying) block off a popular lancashire quarry route. You would have needed a lot of glue to make that one safe. So it's horses for courses. Someone I know was killed by a loose block while standing at the bottom of a route so I always err on the side of caution.
In reply to ksjs:
Or accept that it needs a point of aid at the old grade and not bugger about with the holds at all?
>
> options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
>> options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
Or accept that it needs a point of aid at the old grade and not bugger about with the holds at all?
In reply to ksjs:
I do see your point however where do we draw the line? Maybe this was the thinking of drilling the pockets in the first place. Some routes can be improved by missing holds/ rockfalls such as gates of eden. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=33990
I think the route is now much better than before, this obviously works two ways as the routes on brownspear point no longer exist due to a rock fall, I wonder if medwards could do some work here?
> (In reply to rockjedi12345) no, youre not mistaken. imagine this though: 3 star, all-time classic, historic route loses crucial crux hold rendering it unclimable or at least significantly altering the grade.
>
> options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
>
> keep in mind this will often happen on otherwise stable and compact rock so there isnt the general 'its falling down anyway' thing. for what its worth, id say that anyone into sport is just as zealous about the integrity of the holds / ascent as any trad climber.
>
> options are: do nothing and lose a piece of history (or indeed potentially any option of actually climbing a route at all) or judicious use of adhesive to stick the hold back together / in place thus allowing future climbers to enjoy the route as was.
>
> keep in mind this will often happen on otherwise stable and compact rock so there isnt the general 'its falling down anyway' thing. for what its worth, id say that anyone into sport is just as zealous about the integrity of the holds / ascent as any trad climber.
I do see your point however where do we draw the line? Maybe this was the thinking of drilling the pockets in the first place. Some routes can be improved by missing holds/ rockfalls such as gates of eden. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=33990
I think the route is now much better than before, this obviously works two ways as the routes on brownspear point no longer exist due to a rock fall, I wonder if medwards could do some work here?
In reply to Dave Garnett: nobody wants to aid a sport route - i cant imagine much worse: grabbing a sling or whatever mid-crux, that would destroy the routes flow / character; aiding the route sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Many dozens of people must have pulled on Pekkie's hold by now (sounds a bit naughty!) I certainly have, several times. It was a judgement call - and a consensus one - about a place which he cares about greatly. A completely different kettle of fish to what has happened in Cornwall.
Mick
> (In reply to Pekkie)
> You must be very confident that you're making things safer.
Many dozens of people must have pulled on Pekkie's hold by now (sounds a bit naughty!) I certainly have, several times. It was a judgement call - and a consensus one - about a place which he cares about greatly. A completely different kettle of fish to what has happened in Cornwall.
Mick
In reply to rockjedi12345: no offence but i dont think you get it. a sport route's character is often defined by the move(s) and holds i.e. making the span to that famous edge just as <insert climbing legend of choice> did however many years ago and glowing inside when you finally latch it.
no more of that if the hold disappears. yes, it may be climbable in an altered state but it just wont be the same. this is often not the case with trad where the whole route makes the experience and an individual hold may not be so critical. moreover, it is somehow accepted that hold loss is part and parcel of the trad game. due partly to the rock types we typically climb trad on.
as for where we draw the line, thats easy: where it makes sense and there is consensus.
no more of that if the hold disappears. yes, it may be climbable in an altered state but it just wont be the same. this is often not the case with trad where the whole route makes the experience and an individual hold may not be so critical. moreover, it is somehow accepted that hold loss is part and parcel of the trad game. due partly to the rock types we typically climb trad on.
as for where we draw the line, thats easy: where it makes sense and there is consensus.
In reply to ksjs:
your right I never realy did get sport climbing ethics, clip sticks etc!
I do understand your point but guess I just dont agree with sticking holds on (in repairing them). If the flow is that important then you may as well bolt an indoor hold on to repair that hold.
but you are right on where we draw the line
(not wanting to be argumentative but I am on day 2 of 12 weeks on my backside with a ruptured achilles and am a bit bored of daytime tv!)
your right I never realy did get sport climbing ethics, clip sticks etc!
I do understand your point but guess I just dont agree with sticking holds on (in repairing them). If the flow is that important then you may as well bolt an indoor hold on to repair that hold.
but you are right on where we draw the line
(not wanting to be argumentative but I am on day 2 of 12 weeks on my backside with a ruptured achilles and am a bit bored of daytime tv!)
In reply to ksjs:
I get what you mean and obviously it's a matter of degree. I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent but I find your horror of having to pull on a bolt because you can't do the move pretty funny in the circumstances.
> (In reply to Dave Garnett) nobody wants to aid a sport route - i cant imagine much worse: grabbing a sling or whatever mid-crux, that would destroy the routes flow / character; aiding the route sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I get what you mean and obviously it's a matter of degree. I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent but I find your horror of having to pull on a bolt because you can't do the move pretty funny in the circumstances.
In reply to Dave Garnett: i know theres bolts just nearby and everything but, honestly, doing sport crux sequences is one of the things that makes me feel most alive: executing precise but unlikely movements (that i have probably spent a long time working out) at my limit in what is often an amazing position or surroundings is hard to beat. the idea of killing that whole moment makes me sad. i dont think im exaggerating either.
I haven't had time to read the whole of this thread but I am not surprised by what I have read.
After Andy Pollit and I found all the chipped holds on Mark Edwards' routes I decided to write an article to expose what was going on. The article was printed in Crags magazine and caused a bit of a stir.
I had no proof that Mark had chipped the holds so simply reported what he told me; that some other local climbers had chipped the holds. This didn't go down well with the local climbers I can tell you.
It seemed obvious to Andy and me that Mark had chipped the holds. He even admitted chipping the ones in Follies cove saying that he had used a drill to remove loose rock (or something like that).
The Red Rose holds were crafted with a drill, the same thing that was used to place the bolts. If it was done before these holds were chipped then it was a very difficult route indeed.
After Andy Pollit and I found all the chipped holds on Mark Edwards' routes I decided to write an article to expose what was going on. The article was printed in Crags magazine and caused a bit of a stir.
I had no proof that Mark had chipped the holds so simply reported what he told me; that some other local climbers had chipped the holds. This didn't go down well with the local climbers I can tell you.
It seemed obvious to Andy and me that Mark had chipped the holds. He even admitted chipping the ones in Follies cove saying that he had used a drill to remove loose rock (or something like that).
The Red Rose holds were crafted with a drill, the same thing that was used to place the bolts. If it was done before these holds were chipped then it was a very difficult route indeed.
In reply to ksjs:
I believe you, although for me the aesthetics of the rock would come into it too. I guess I'm a climber who sometimes climbs on bolts (and hardly ever in the UK), rather than a sport climber.
I wouldn't want to climb a route that looked like the sika hold photographs whether it was sport or trad, easy or hard.
I believe you, although for me the aesthetics of the rock would come into it too. I guess I'm a climber who sometimes climbs on bolts (and hardly ever in the UK), rather than a sport climber.
I wouldn't want to climb a route that looked like the sika hold photographs whether it was sport or trad, easy or hard.
In reply to Dave Garnett: that's easily solved by once coming to a mass local agreement, not letting a retard do the sikaing. There's a surprising amount of it knocking around and as far as I know a lot of it is genuinely unnoticeable.
It looks like medwards is an unusually slow three-year-old with worryingly underdeveloped plasticine skills from the mess he's left in those photos. FFS
It looks like medwards is an unusually slow three-year-old with worryingly underdeveloped plasticine skills from the mess he's left in those photos. FFS
In reply to chrishamper: Better get it right, the article was in High not Crags. Just showing my age.
In reply to liz j:
It's not much of a secret there were bolts on Atlantic Ocean Wall all or some of which have now been chopped.
I suppose when RE says the second belay he means the one at the top of the long main pitch, which we see in the video. Curiously, I remember an article by Jim Perrin about an ascent of the route with the Edwardses in which he says it was the belay at the top of the first pitch (the sloping ledge the chap is belaying on in the video) which was unprotectable without bolts. Whereas Littlejohn's guide says 'nut belays' for that, and the definitive guide says 'medium friend belays a little way up the groove' for the other one. It's also hard to believe there were only three pegs and one tube originally bearing in mind the amount of ironmongery there is now by all accounts, but still. Whatever, it's a magnificent route and a very nice video, so let's be grateful for that anyway.
Those sikaed holds are just ridiculous though. What in the world was he thinking?!
jcm
It's not much of a secret there were bolts on Atlantic Ocean Wall all or some of which have now been chopped.
I suppose when RE says the second belay he means the one at the top of the long main pitch, which we see in the video. Curiously, I remember an article by Jim Perrin about an ascent of the route with the Edwardses in which he says it was the belay at the top of the first pitch (the sloping ledge the chap is belaying on in the video) which was unprotectable without bolts. Whereas Littlejohn's guide says 'nut belays' for that, and the definitive guide says 'medium friend belays a little way up the groove' for the other one. It's also hard to believe there were only three pegs and one tube originally bearing in mind the amount of ironmongery there is now by all accounts, but still. Whatever, it's a magnificent route and a very nice video, so let's be grateful for that anyway.
Those sikaed holds are just ridiculous though. What in the world was he thinking?!
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Does thought have much to do with it? Thats the thing that fascinates me about this destructive activity; the psychology involved. Why would someone to do this? If they are thinking and do have insight, then they must know that they are undermining their own ego by cheating themselves out of an ethically clean ascent and undermining their own ego again by putting themselves at odds with the entire climbing community in the process. If they don't have insight or thought behind the activity, then it might explain the free advertisement of the activity, but it doesn't explain why you'd become silent about it now. Presuming he is responsible for all of this, I actually hope that medwards sees that he has made a mistake and wants to rectify it. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, with insight intact, it must be quite an unpleasant hit to anyones ego to have so systemically alienated the climbing community as evidenced by this UKC thread. I actually hope and believe he isn't the climbing communities equivalent of an unempathic antisocial individual and that he is capable of insight, empathy, guilt and understanding, because if he is capable of those things, a genuine attempt to rectify the situation, a confession and an apology would be enough for me to forgive the guy. I hope others might feel the same and that we can provide here a genuine opportunity for him to move on and continue to utilise the genuine talents he clearly also has.
> Those sikaed holds are just ridiculous though. What in the world was he thinking?!
Does thought have much to do with it? Thats the thing that fascinates me about this destructive activity; the psychology involved. Why would someone to do this? If they are thinking and do have insight, then they must know that they are undermining their own ego by cheating themselves out of an ethically clean ascent and undermining their own ego again by putting themselves at odds with the entire climbing community in the process. If they don't have insight or thought behind the activity, then it might explain the free advertisement of the activity, but it doesn't explain why you'd become silent about it now. Presuming he is responsible for all of this, I actually hope that medwards sees that he has made a mistake and wants to rectify it. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, with insight intact, it must be quite an unpleasant hit to anyones ego to have so systemically alienated the climbing community as evidenced by this UKC thread. I actually hope and believe he isn't the climbing communities equivalent of an unempathic antisocial individual and that he is capable of insight, empathy, guilt and understanding, because if he is capable of those things, a genuine attempt to rectify the situation, a confession and an apology would be enough for me to forgive the guy. I hope others might feel the same and that we can provide here a genuine opportunity for him to move on and continue to utilise the genuine talents he clearly also has.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Put youself in his shoes, he is a major activist in the South-West.
You only have to look around to see that sikaed holds is a normal activity in hotbeds of climbing such as the Peak District and Yorkshire, where critical holds on climbs fall off.
So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
My point only relate to that activity and not the alledged chipping/drilling of cam slots.
Put youself in his shoes, he is a major activist in the South-West.
You only have to look around to see that sikaed holds is a normal activity in hotbeds of climbing such as the Peak District and Yorkshire, where critical holds on climbs fall off.
So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
My point only relate to that activity and not the alledged chipping/drilling of cam slots.
In reply to UKC News: This thread is getting a bit ridiculous now - it gives the impression they have never done anything good for climbing-i'm sure at least some of their routes and behaviour were decent. and i bet at least a few of the people on this thread have been guilty of over-judicious wire-brushing/route-cleaning etc.
maybe a bit of balance and mention other people you know who chip/sika etc.?
personally, i heard they eat babies.
maybe a bit of balance and mention other people you know who chip/sika etc.?
personally, i heard they eat babies.
In reply to Jimbo W:
but this type of "behaviour" has apparently been going for years against the strong views and wishes of many in the climbing community, so I wouldn't have thought this thread will suddenly lead to any apology or change.
but this type of "behaviour" has apparently been going for years against the strong views and wishes of many in the climbing community, so I wouldn't have thought this thread will suddenly lead to any apology or change.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> [...]
>
> Does thought have much to do with it? Thats the thing that fascinates me about this destructive activity; the psychology involved. Why would someone to do this? If they are thinking and do have insight, then they must know that they are undermining their own ego by cheating themselves out of an ethically clean ascent and undermining their own ego again by putting themselves at odds with the entire climbing community in the process. If they don't have insight or thought behind the activity, then it might explain the free advertisement of the activity, but it doesn't explain why you'd become silent about it now. Presuming he is responsible for all of this, I actually hope that medwards sees that he has made a mistake and wants to rectify it. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, with insight intact, it must be quite an unpleasant hit to anyones ego to have so systemically alienated the climbing community as evidenced by this UKC thread. I actually hope and believe he isn't the climbing communities equivalent of an unempathic antisocial individual and that he is capable of insight, empathy, guilt and understanding, because if he is capable of those things, a genuine attempt to rectify the situation, a confession and an apology would be enough for me to forgive the guy. I hope others might feel the same and that we can provide here a genuine opportunity for him to move on and continue to utilise the genuine talents he clearly also has.
>
> [...]
>
> Does thought have much to do with it? Thats the thing that fascinates me about this destructive activity; the psychology involved. Why would someone to do this? If they are thinking and do have insight, then they must know that they are undermining their own ego by cheating themselves out of an ethically clean ascent and undermining their own ego again by putting themselves at odds with the entire climbing community in the process. If they don't have insight or thought behind the activity, then it might explain the free advertisement of the activity, but it doesn't explain why you'd become silent about it now. Presuming he is responsible for all of this, I actually hope that medwards sees that he has made a mistake and wants to rectify it. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, with insight intact, it must be quite an unpleasant hit to anyones ego to have so systemically alienated the climbing community as evidenced by this UKC thread. I actually hope and believe he isn't the climbing communities equivalent of an unempathic antisocial individual and that he is capable of insight, empathy, guilt and understanding, because if he is capable of those things, a genuine attempt to rectify the situation, a confession and an apology would be enough for me to forgive the guy. I hope others might feel the same and that we can provide here a genuine opportunity for him to move on and continue to utilise the genuine talents he clearly also has.
Well said. I think this would actually be enough for most folks who just want them to stop this stuff and come clean about their previous actions, an apology to the falsely accused locals would also seem to be in order but i'm not holding my breath.
egg
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I'm not really interested in a prediction about the future, but rather to hope a consensus might emerge here that remedial behaviour and apologies might be possible for the sake of reconciliation.
I'm not really interested in a prediction about the future, but rather to hope a consensus might emerge here that remedial behaviour and apologies might be possible for the sake of reconciliation.
In reply to Tobias at Home:
I've used Sika occasionally, but I've never eaten a baby. Well, not a whole one. At least, not in one sitting...
> (In reply to UKC News) > maybe a bit of balance and mention other people you know who chip/sika etc.?
>
> personally, i heard they eat babies.
>
> personally, i heard they eat babies.
I've used Sika occasionally, but I've never eaten a baby. Well, not a whole one. At least, not in one sitting...
In reply to UKC News: Apparently this was blank till ME visited recently....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Tafoni_at_Elgol,_Isle_of_Skye...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Tafoni_at_Elgol,_Isle_of_Skye...
In reply to Chris Harris:
Very good :-D
> (In reply to UKC News) Apparently this was blank till ME visited recently....
Very good :-D
In reply to shane ohly:
A certain similarity between holds?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
and
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150399
This is Millenium at Echo Valley in Spain, in just 10m there are 10 silca holds. ME also gave it 2 stars.
A certain similarity between holds?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
and
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150399
This is Millenium at Echo Valley in Spain, in just 10m there are 10 silca holds. ME also gave it 2 stars.
In reply to UKC News:
So by all accounts Mark Edwards is mad, bad and dangerous. Can we have him sectioned?
So by all accounts Mark Edwards is mad, bad and dangerous. Can we have him sectioned?
In reply to neilh:
Don't you think you're overstating it a bit there with "normal activity"?
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Put youself in his shoes, he is a major activist in the South-West.
>
No, thank you.>
> Put youself in his shoes, he is a major activist in the South-West.
>
> You only have to look around to see that sikaed holds is a normal activity in hotbeds of climbing such as the Peak District and Yorkshire, where critical holds on climbs fall off.
Don't you think you're overstating it a bit there with "normal activity"?
>
> So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
>
Whether or not creating holds is normal in one area, it's a weak justification for creating holds in another area that you know inside out and where you know full well such activities are not acceptable.> So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
>
In reply to neilh:
>So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
Yeah, but then Mark Edwards isn't a 12-year-old. He knows this is not acceptable to - well, I was going to say the vast majority of climbers, but frankly I think 'anyone but him' would be pretty much fair. And maybe Daisyclimber.
jcm
>So he follows the trend set elsewhere.He can quite easily say, it's no different to practices in other climbing areas of outstanding beauty.It might not be pretty, but why are you not commenting on what goes on elsewhere.
Yeah, but then Mark Edwards isn't a 12-year-old. He knows this is not acceptable to - well, I was going to say the vast majority of climbers, but frankly I think 'anyone but him' would be pretty much fair. And maybe Daisyclimber.
jcm
In reply to edwardwoodward:
Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire? I am sure there are people who could produce a list for you, probably open everybody's eyes to what happens. There's a challenge for somebdody..
Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire? I am sure there are people who could produce a list for you, probably open everybody's eyes to what happens. There's a challenge for somebdody..
In reply to neilh:
I think opening peoples' eyes is quite a good idea. It would be interesting to see what the general reaction might be.
> (In reply to edwardwoodward)
>
> Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire? I am sure there are people who could produce a list for you, probably open everybody's eyes to what happens.
>
> Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire? I am sure there are people who could produce a list for you, probably open everybody's eyes to what happens.
I think opening peoples' eyes is quite a good idea. It would be interesting to see what the general reaction might be.
In reply to neilh:
Maybe I don't get out as much as I'd like to but I don't recall seeing that much sika on Peak and Yorkshire sport climbs. Maybe the odd hold glued in.
> > Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire? I am sure there are people who could produce a list for you, probably open everybody's eyes to what happens.
Maybe I don't get out as much as I'd like to but I don't recall seeing that much sika on Peak and Yorkshire sport climbs. Maybe the odd hold glued in.
In reply to Pekkie: I've seen sika on quite a few routes at Giggleswick and Robin Proctors and it's usually fairly unobtrusive - maybe it blends better with the rock colour? It's always there to stop things falling apart rather than supplying a hold. Unjustified at Malham (nee Justified and Ancient) seems to be the only example I know of an actual sika hold being used in Yorkshire. At Gigg North bolt-on holds were used on The Sound of One Hand Slapping (Mick Ryan no less) - the lime guide says they were removed (but not by who).
In reply to UKC News: moral compass facing west more like.
In reply to neilh:
I've just done a tot-up of the number of sikad/glued holds at Raven Tor that I can remember off the top of my head. I've counted just over 30. I wouldn't be surprised if there was the same number again that I don't know about. There are a huge amount of glued holds on Peak limestone.
> (In reply to edwardwoodward)
>
> Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire?
>
> Do you know how many sikaed holds there are in the Peaks and Yorkshire?
I've just done a tot-up of the number of sikad/glued holds at Raven Tor that I can remember off the top of my head. I've counted just over 30. I wouldn't be surprised if there was the same number again that I don't know about. There are a huge amount of glued holds on Peak limestone.
'It seemed obvious to Andy and me that Mark had chipped the holds. He even admitted chipping the ones in Follies cove saying that he had used a drill to remove loose rock (or something like that). The Red Rose holds were crafted with a drill, the same thing that was used to place the bolts.'
For us much reviled 'local climbers' and 'witch hunters' in West Cornwall, Chris Hamper's article in High magazine in 1989 concerning the bolting and chipping of Red Rose at Sennen was remarkable. Both Chris and Andy Pollitt bravely blew the whistle on what was a growing series of deceptions in new route development in West Cornwall during the 1980s. It's incredible, but not too surprising, to see, 20 years later, a virtual re-run of the Red Rose scandal involving the route First and Last Wall.
For those who only have vague knowledge of the Red Rose controversy:
When Chris Hamper and Andy Pollitt asked Mark Edwards about the chipped holds that they had discovered on Red Rose, Edwards, backed by his father, Rowland, immediately stated that:
'He was unaware that it had been chipped, but was not surprised because (he said) many of his routes had been chipped after his first ascents by local climbers out to discredit him.' (High Magazine, November 1989)
An obvious definition of locals is 'those who live within the immediate vicinity of a place'. These knee-jerk allegations were made against the mere dozen or so modestly active climbers who lived within the area of the Land's End Peninsula. (Cornwall breeds surfers rather than climbers). I was a climber who was considered to be local and I certainly took fierce exception to the Edwardses' slanderous and frankly, cowardly allegations. The Edwardses later backtracked - in some panic apparently - on the details of the allegations, first claiming that by 'local climbers' they meant anyone within the county of Cornwall. They later amended this again by claiming that by 'local' they meant anyone from Bristol to Land's End!
(Pete O' Sullivan and I promptly called a new route we did, Local Martians, on the grounds that we may as well extend the area of the potential guilty parties even further afield. I think the sarcasm was lost on some people.)
During the 1980s Rowland and Mark Edwards between them established approximately 130 drilled placements (mainly protection bolts, drilled pegs and belay bolts) on over 43 routes on 18 cliffs in West Cornwall, including protection bolts on the iconic granite of Sennen and Chairladder. This was not a bold 'pushing of boundaries' in a backwater in the face of sad, behind-the-times, 'jealous' locals. This was not the 'maverick' activism mentioned by Iain Peters earlier in this thread. Neither was it so-called 'environmental bolting' . Nor was it an 'occasional' bolt. It was a crude debasement of the Cornish cliffs and a theft of the future, all the way from Immaculate Arete at Pordenack through Red Rose at Sennen and Rats in a Rage at Chairladder to Art of the Slate at Gurnard's Head and many, many more.
The balance of probability and of credibility surrounding who was responsible for chipping Cornish routes does not hang in the balance so much as hang in mid air, engulfed in a very nasty stench that not even the clean winds of the Atlantic have yet blown away - certainly not from the Red Rose wall at Sennen and other cliffs and certainly not from the First and Last Wall at Land's End. (First and Last Wall has already been renamed Pickpockets by us locals - one thing we do well down here in 'witch hunting' country is take the mickey - relentlessly. It has kept us sane for many years.)
This remarkable UKC thread, thanks to the honesty of Nic Sellars, Shane Ohly and others, has gone some way towards clarifying the 'Cornish Controversies'. All we can hope for is a true 'redemption' through admission and apology, although you'll forgive me for not holding my breath. We should also acknowledge that the unquestionably talented Edwardses have pioneered, within their natural limits as climbers, a host of excellent traditional routes in West Cornwall, although even that achievement will now be forever tainted. They overreached themselves, through vanity and, I believe, badly judged commercial ambition. They also got it wrong big time in thinking that the few local Cornish climbers of the day would be reluctant or afraid to speak out and protest at their antics. We took a lot of stick for it - and not just from the Edwardses, but Truth will out.
We didn't deserve the Edwardses in Cornwall, but, in all of this sorry mess, Cornish rock and the Cornish coastal wilderness are, of course, the real victims. Without wanting to curse any other climbing area with the ugliness that West Cornwall has suffered, I wish that in the 1980s the Edwardses had set up their business in Pembroke - or Mars…
Des Hannigan
reply to chrishamper:
In reply to HanniganD:
Well I think the more 'locals' who can share their experiences the better. I've been following this thread for a week or so now.
Surely the account from Shane O when he went to look at the route the following weekend after the first ascent was reported says it all. Does the phantom chipper really sit at home sharpening his drill bits waiting for the the new edition of High/OTE/Climb to be delivered so he can refer to the Cornish New Routes section, rush out the same day and get to work??
Does everyone know what Ockham's Razor is??
Well I think the more 'locals' who can share their experiences the better. I've been following this thread for a week or so now.
Surely the account from Shane O when he went to look at the route the following weekend after the first ascent was reported says it all. Does the phantom chipper really sit at home sharpening his drill bits waiting for the the new edition of High/OTE/Climb to be delivered so he can refer to the Cornish New Routes section, rush out the same day and get to work??
Does everyone know what Ockham's Razor is??
In reply to samsamsam:
It could be explained by Occam's razor, yes ... but surely there's a simpler explanation?
> Does everyone know what Ockham's Razor is??
It could be explained by Occam's razor, yes ... but surely there's a simpler explanation?
In reply to HanniganD:
A total shambles, and Mark has been noticeable by his absence from this thread. He wrote;
UKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
OK Mark, time to produce your witnesses or be denounced as a liar, yes, till you produce them that is what everyone thinks. you have done yourself and your business no good by this episode, time to speak up.
A total shambles, and Mark has been noticeable by his absence from this thread. He wrote;
UKC contacted Mark Edwards, who is a regular UKC forum user, for his comments. Mark stated that the drilling was nothing to do with him, and he was saddened by the event:
"Very sad to hear about this, There was no drilling going on for any cam placements for my ascent. I had seven witnesses during my cleaning and ascent and I am sure they would also state this fact too. It's a shame if the route has been messed around with, it would not be the first time it's happened in West Penwith. The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then."
OK Mark, time to produce your witnesses or be denounced as a liar, yes, till you produce them that is what everyone thinks. you have done yourself and your business no good by this episode, time to speak up.
In reply to john arran:
Haha
> (In reply to samsamsam)
>
> [...]
>
> It could be explained by Occam's razor, yes ... but surely there's a simpler explanation?
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> It could be explained by Occam's razor, yes ... but surely there's a simpler explanation?
>
>
Haha
In reply to john arran:
Very good.
You might know this, by the way - why is it that AFAIK virtually no-one regards Rewind as the first E10? Is it just because Equilibrium's in the Peak and therefore counts double?
If one rules that out, then logically there are only three explanations:
People don't believe it's really E10.
People don't believe he did it at all.
People believe the ascent was backdated.
Any insights into why it hasn't achieved greater fame?
jcm
Very good.
You might know this, by the way - why is it that AFAIK virtually no-one regards Rewind as the first E10? Is it just because Equilibrium's in the Peak and therefore counts double?
If one rules that out, then logically there are only three explanations:
People don't believe it's really E10.
People don't believe he did it at all.
People believe the ascent was backdated.
Any insights into why it hasn't achieved greater fame?
jcm
In reply to HanniganD:
Thank you Des, for that interesting post.
I could say it was illuminating, but sadly it wasn’t. You have merely reiterated what I, and many climbers of my generation have known for years.
I was in the pub in Sheffield when Chris and Andy returned from that trip, and I still remember clearly just how disappointed and disgusted they were by what they had found.
At the time, they were two of the most talented climbers in the country, and they had been inspired to travel to Cornwall to attempt to repeat a route which had been given a big write up and an exceptional grade at the time. They’d gone ready for a challenge, and prepared for a hard time.
What they weren’t expecting was to find that one of the most compact granite walls in Cornwall – and we aren’t talking about the crumbly stuff on the First and Last Wall here – had been butchered with a drill to create a designer, bolt-protected climb.
As if this wasn’t appalling enough, the subsequent denial and counter-accusation by this deluded Michelangelo showed just how naive he was.
And so it continued, and the shocking statistics in your post show just how extensive was the vandalism inflicted on these precious cliffs.
Your final comment about not wanting to curse any other climbing area with the ugliness that West Cornwall has suffered is sadly much too late. I have climbed extensively in The Costa Blanca, and have encountered, first hand, numerous examples of equivalent vandalism on routes opened by The Edwards on those cliffs. And I know from speaking to local Spanish climbers out there, just how aggrieved they feel about the damage that has been done to their superb cliffs.
Several credible individuals, not hiding behind pseudonyms, have posted definitive, eye-witness accounts of the damage these two have wreaked across Cornwall over several decades. Yet even in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the apologists have weighed in throughout this historic thread.
Well, I suggest those naïve defenders now take a long hard look at the evidence before them. If you aren’t capable of piecing together the pieces of this “jigsaw for the under-4’s” then I hope you never consider a career in the police…
Neil
Thank you Des, for that interesting post.
I could say it was illuminating, but sadly it wasn’t. You have merely reiterated what I, and many climbers of my generation have known for years.
I was in the pub in Sheffield when Chris and Andy returned from that trip, and I still remember clearly just how disappointed and disgusted they were by what they had found.
At the time, they were two of the most talented climbers in the country, and they had been inspired to travel to Cornwall to attempt to repeat a route which had been given a big write up and an exceptional grade at the time. They’d gone ready for a challenge, and prepared for a hard time.
What they weren’t expecting was to find that one of the most compact granite walls in Cornwall – and we aren’t talking about the crumbly stuff on the First and Last Wall here – had been butchered with a drill to create a designer, bolt-protected climb.
As if this wasn’t appalling enough, the subsequent denial and counter-accusation by this deluded Michelangelo showed just how naive he was.
And so it continued, and the shocking statistics in your post show just how extensive was the vandalism inflicted on these precious cliffs.
Your final comment about not wanting to curse any other climbing area with the ugliness that West Cornwall has suffered is sadly much too late. I have climbed extensively in The Costa Blanca, and have encountered, first hand, numerous examples of equivalent vandalism on routes opened by The Edwards on those cliffs. And I know from speaking to local Spanish climbers out there, just how aggrieved they feel about the damage that has been done to their superb cliffs.
Several credible individuals, not hiding behind pseudonyms, have posted definitive, eye-witness accounts of the damage these two have wreaked across Cornwall over several decades. Yet even in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the apologists have weighed in throughout this historic thread.
Well, I suggest those naïve defenders now take a long hard look at the evidence before them. If you aren’t capable of piecing together the pieces of this “jigsaw for the under-4’s” then I hope you never consider a career in the police…
Neil
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to john arran)
>
>
> People believe the ascent was backdated.
>
An interesting idea, given the name.>
In reply to Dave Garnett:
To be fair, I think that was a reference to climbing a bolt route, which ME had established, on gear.
jcm
To be fair, I think that was a reference to climbing a bolt route, which ME had established, on gear.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I think it's because until a route is repeated and the grade confirmed it can't (or shouldn't) really be thought of as "the first E**". Eqiulibrium was the first confirmed E10, and at present is the only one confirmed.
I think it's because until a route is repeated and the grade confirmed it can't (or shouldn't) really be thought of as "the first E**". Eqiulibrium was the first confirmed E10, and at present is the only one confirmed.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
It was being touted and filmed as the first E10 long before it was repeated. I suppose to be fair half Sheffield had been trying it.
jcm
It was being touted and filmed as the first E10 long before it was repeated. I suppose to be fair half Sheffield had been trying it.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Don't want to divert the thread but what's the story on Rewind: has it been confirmed or downgraded?
Don't want to divert the thread but what's the story on Rewind: has it been confirmed or downgraded?
In reply to UKC News: I dont have anything to say on this as I dont know anything about it but if anyone shows up in Chew with a drill theyve had it!
In reply to Eric Herring:
Haven't a clue I'm afraid! But I imagine it would have been major news if someone had climbed it.
Haven't a clue I'm afraid! But I imagine it would have been major news if someone had climbed it.
In reply to UKC News: I'm curious about ME's record on hard routes. All the hard routes I remember reading about him climbing seem to be his own. Does he have any track record of repeating other people's?
In reply to aln:
Do the Edwardses ever climb anywhere outside waet Cornwall? It seems they have isolated themselves from the rest of UK climbing for the last 20 years or so and hence have no apprecation of UK grades, ethics etc
Do the Edwardses ever climb anywhere outside waet Cornwall? It seems they have isolated themselves from the rest of UK climbing for the last 20 years or so and hence have no apprecation of UK grades, ethics etc
In reply to aln:
Good question, seconded
> (In reply to UKC News) Does he have any track record of repeating other people's?
Good question, seconded
In reply to kevin stephens:
Baptism of Fire, Glencoe, 1987, around the time that others were bolting on the same hill!
Baptism of Fire, Glencoe, 1987, around the time that others were bolting on the same hill!
In reply to Colin Moody:
Actually the saddest thing is, I think ME is an incredibly talented climber who has no need to do this sort of thing. ... and thats what baffles me , why?
Actually the saddest thing is, I think ME is an incredibly talented climber who has no need to do this sort of thing. ... and thats what baffles me , why?
In reply to HanniganD:
"First and Last Wall has already been renamed Pickpockets by us locals"
As this concerns a Mark E, how about "Spoilt Edwardian Child"?
Got the damn' tune stuck in my head now.
"First and Last Wall has already been renamed Pickpockets by us locals"
As this concerns a Mark E, how about "Spoilt Edwardian Child"?
Got the damn' tune stuck in my head now.
In reply to UKC News:
Was Rewind not repeated by Ken Palmer and then downgraded to E7 7a? I could be wrong.......
Was Rewind not repeated by Ken Palmer and then downgraded to E7 7a? I could be wrong.......
In reply to Theclimbinglab:
That sounds more like Question Mark to me, and it is a proposed downgrade. As far as I know Rewind hasn't been repeated and, logistaclly, it is supposed to be very difficult to rig to redpoint. ME (reportedly) had the advantage of having already worked the route with bolts in place.
That sounds more like Question Mark to me, and it is a proposed downgrade. As far as I know Rewind hasn't been repeated and, logistaclly, it is supposed to be very difficult to rig to redpoint. ME (reportedly) had the advantage of having already worked the route with bolts in place.
In reply to JimR:
But obviously not talented enough if he has to bring the rock down to his level. Not only is he cheating better climbers out of first ascents, but surely he's cheating himself as well?
> (In reply to Colin Moody)
> Actually the saddest thing is, I think ME is an incredibly talented climber who has no need to do this sort of thing. ... and thats what baffles me , why?
> Actually the saddest thing is, I think ME is an incredibly talented climber who has no need to do this sort of thing. ... and thats what baffles me , why?
But obviously not talented enough if he has to bring the rock down to his level. Not only is he cheating better climbers out of first ascents, but surely he's cheating himself as well?
In reply to liz j:
Incredibly insightful post.
> (In reply to JimR)
> [...]
>
> But obviously not talented enough if he has to bring the rock down to his level. Not only is he cheating better climbers out of first ascents, but surely he's cheating himself as well?
> [...]
>
> But obviously not talented enough if he has to bring the rock down to his level. Not only is he cheating better climbers out of first ascents, but surely he's cheating himself as well?
Incredibly insightful post.
In reply to Tam Stone:
Oh hello Volkman, thought it was you..........
Oh hello Volkman, thought it was you..........
In reply to liz j: Hello, you can call me Tam btw, although I still find Volkman amusing.
In reply to liz j:
Well my conclusion there is that you're not making a very good case. There are 3, maybe 4, points in that video where you get reasonable views of him placing gear and clipping it. There doesn't seem to be any need to him to take rests on it in those situations.
I know Mark and Rowland and while I've never been around during any of Mark's first ascents and am unable to comment on whether he's guilty of the practices he's accused of, I've seen him climb, in the past couple of years, several E7/E8 routes, aged around 50, in good style and without resorting to pulling on gear or any other nefarious practices. So I don't think that, 30 years ago, he'd have needed to pull on gear or whatever you might have "drawn conclusions" about on AOW.
I'm not an apologist for terrible practices, and some of the things the Edwards' have done (and made no secret of....bolted granite climbs, ENP protection, sika-ing holds etc) I regard as well outside the limits of acceptability. But I think you've drawn a "conclusion too far" with that particular post.
> (In reply to Hugh Cottam)
> As for claiming first ascents, clean and onsight, maybe this video may shed a little light onto the style of ascent. Although not a film of the first ascent, I do wonder why the camera pans to the belayer everytime a piece of gear is placed, or the film is edited at those points. I came to my own conclusion on that, you make yours.
> As for claiming first ascents, clean and onsight, maybe this video may shed a little light onto the style of ascent. Although not a film of the first ascent, I do wonder why the camera pans to the belayer everytime a piece of gear is placed, or the film is edited at those points. I came to my own conclusion on that, you make yours.
Well my conclusion there is that you're not making a very good case. There are 3, maybe 4, points in that video where you get reasonable views of him placing gear and clipping it. There doesn't seem to be any need to him to take rests on it in those situations.
I know Mark and Rowland and while I've never been around during any of Mark's first ascents and am unable to comment on whether he's guilty of the practices he's accused of, I've seen him climb, in the past couple of years, several E7/E8 routes, aged around 50, in good style and without resorting to pulling on gear or any other nefarious practices. So I don't think that, 30 years ago, he'd have needed to pull on gear or whatever you might have "drawn conclusions" about on AOW.
I'm not an apologist for terrible practices, and some of the things the Edwards' have done (and made no secret of....bolted granite climbs, ENP protection, sika-ing holds etc) I regard as well outside the limits of acceptability. But I think you've drawn a "conclusion too far" with that particular post.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
There's the stabilisation of footholds on Bridestones using a clear liquid epoxy. As far as I know that maintenance work was generally welcomed because it maintained the visual and technical nature of the problems.
> (In reply to neilh)
>
> Not many that aren't on sport routes and/or limestone, I would suggest.
>
> jcm
>
> Not many that aren't on sport routes and/or limestone, I would suggest.
>
> jcm
There's the stabilisation of footholds on Bridestones using a clear liquid epoxy. As far as I know that maintenance work was generally welcomed because it maintained the visual and technical nature of the problems.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Was this on their routes or other established routes that have had their grades confirmed? Because many of Mark's routes have been found to be massively over graded.
> (In reply to liz j)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I know Mark and Rowland and while I've never been around during any of Mark's first ascents and am unable to comment on whether he's guilty of the practices he's accused of, I've seen him climb, in the past couple of years, several E7/E8 routes, aged around 50, in good style and without resorting to pulling on gear or any other nefarious practices. So I don't think that, 30 years ago, he'd have needed to pull on gear or whatever you might have "drawn conclusions" about on AOW.
>
>
Was this on their routes or other established routes that have had their grades confirmed? Because many of Mark's routes have been found to be massively over graded.
In reply to Hephaestus:
Mmmyyeeessss. I think erosion repair work is in a slightly different category from the stabilisation of holds which by their nature come and go, especially on certsin types of rock.
I personally would struggle to think of a single trad route which has a glued hold, and I don't think they'd be at all welcome in most areas.
jcm
Mmmyyeeessss. I think erosion repair work is in a slightly different category from the stabilisation of holds which by their nature come and go, especially on certsin types of rock.
I personally would struggle to think of a single trad route which has a glued hold, and I don't think they'd be at all welcome in most areas.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The two things seem synonomous to me - erosion is things falling off and coming to rest lower down than they used to be. Nor do I mind, when the work is done sensitively and because of necessity, what kind of rock is repaired.
Well done repair and maintenance is a service to the climbing community and offends no-one outside it; creating holds and damaging the enviroment is a disservice to everyone. That's the distinction I would make.
> (In reply to Hephaestus)
>
> I think erosion repair work is in a slightly different category from the stabilisation of holds which by their nature come and go, especially on certsin types of rock.
>
> I think erosion repair work is in a slightly different category from the stabilisation of holds which by their nature come and go, especially on certsin types of rock.
The two things seem synonomous to me - erosion is things falling off and coming to rest lower down than they used to be. Nor do I mind, when the work is done sensitively and because of necessity, what kind of rock is repaired.
Well done repair and maintenance is a service to the climbing community and offends no-one outside it; creating holds and damaging the enviroment is a disservice to everyone. That's the distinction I would make.
>
In reply to Hephaestus:
>The two things seem synonomous to me - erosion is things falling off and coming to rest lower down than they used to be. Nor do I mind, when the work is done sensitively and because of necessity, what kind of rock is repaired.
Maybe - still seems to me that there's a slight difference between the gritstone-type rock where once the skin is broken further rapid deterioration is going to occur unless something is done and the limestone where a broken hold is just that. But I do take your point.
You'd be happy if someone sikaed the broken flake at the bottom of RHU back on then. Really?! (I realise it's probably in many tiny bits, but in principle.) I do think that would be a minority view.
jcm
>The two things seem synonomous to me - erosion is things falling off and coming to rest lower down than they used to be. Nor do I mind, when the work is done sensitively and because of necessity, what kind of rock is repaired.
Maybe - still seems to me that there's a slight difference between the gritstone-type rock where once the skin is broken further rapid deterioration is going to occur unless something is done and the limestone where a broken hold is just that. But I do take your point.
You'd be happy if someone sikaed the broken flake at the bottom of RHU back on then. Really?! (I realise it's probably in many tiny bits, but in principle.) I do think that would be a minority view.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
RHU = Right Unconquorable? It's tricky, isn't it? Is that portion of the flake vital to the nature of the climb?
It's climbable without and retains the technical characteristics it had prior to being damaged, so I'd say probably not.
There are plenty of holds that are not replaced - I had a conversation with another climber last year about a limestone route they'd just completed. One of the holds had come off during his ascent and now resides at the bottom of the beck. However, the route still climbs and is still of a standard throughout. Again no discussion of finding the hold and replacing it.
I think this is slightly off topic, so will sign off.
> (In reply to Hephaestus)
>
>
> You'd be happy if someone sikaed the broken flake at the bottom of RHU back on then. Really?!
RHU = Right Unconquorable? It's tricky, isn't it? Is that portion of the flake vital to the nature of the climb?
It's climbable without and retains the technical characteristics it had prior to being damaged, so I'd say probably not.
There are plenty of holds that are not replaced - I had a conversation with another climber last year about a limestone route they'd just completed. One of the holds had come off during his ascent and now resides at the bottom of the beck. However, the route still climbs and is still of a standard throughout. Again no discussion of finding the hold and replacing it.
I think this is slightly off topic, so will sign off.
In Reply to JohnCoxMysteriously and Hephaestus:
It is slightly off topic, but I think it's worth clarifying that the ethics with regard to this issue in the UK are precisely the same in Sport Climbing, Trad Climbing and Bouldering:
No new holds are EVER to be created or existing holds improved.
However, if a natural hold has (through wear and tear from climbers) fallen off, then a judgement call has to be made as to whether or not it should be replaced. If this work is done well and by competent and experienced people, this will leave no mess at all and will return the route or boulder into its natural state (i.e before the wear and tear due to climbing damaged it.) (Also at some crags above roads and footpaths, loose blocks need to be trundled or glued to ensure continued access to the crag.)
For those of you who think this only happens on sport routes, I suggest that next time you’re at Stanage, you go and take a look at the jug at the top of The Ace. This was pulled off a number of years ago and was subsequently glued back on – but you can’t tell that from just looking at it from the ground. Also a number of grit routes and boulders, which have had too much climbing traffic and have started to erode badly have had the crumbling surface “treated” to prevent further damage. (As has been mentioned - go and take a look at The Bridestones if you think this kind of work doesn’t occasionally need doing…) The fact that most of you haven’t even realised that this kind of conservation work goes on, suggests that in general, the people doing it do a pretty good job.
So, whilst it certainly does happen at sport crags, the practice is NOT that widespread – at high quality crags like Malham, I can’t think of a single instance of this on any present routes. (As JD pointed out above, there was an infamous incident of a sica’d hold on Unjustified nearly two decades ago, but this was swiftly removed, and the route reclimbed without it) . Where it does happen is at crags with less good quality rock such as Raven’s Tor or The Cornice in Cheedale as Ru has mentioned. At places such as this, when a hold falls off a route, a decision is made as to whether or not to glue it back – factors taken into account are that:
1. Sometimes a hold falling off leaves a crumbling mess behind, which the weather will get into causing more erosion and resulting to significant damage to the crag. In these circumstances, glueing the hold back is almost certainly the best approach.
2. Sometimes a hold falling off destroys a classic route (as ksjs has already said) by rendering it much harder. This is a trickier ethical situation, because you can’t pretend that you are replacing the hold for conservation reasons. There are good arguments on both sides, and usually a sensible decision is made on a case by case basis.
HOWEVER… All of this is of course somewhat off the main subject of this thread.
The situation on the routes discussed in Cornwall is entirely different, where holds have been created, drilled, improved, chipped etc etc... Frankly, it's terrible, whoever is responsible. As Will rightly said higher up this thread – There is NO greater crime in the world of rock climbing than creating or improving holds in any way.
There is a finite amount of rock in the world. In the UK (with the exception of Scotland), we really are running out of the stuff. And rock climbing has developed from pretty much nowhere in 100 years. Think about the people climbing in the UK in 1000 years.
People bulling on about the fact that lots of routes were chipped donkey’s years ago are completely missing the point. When those routes were chipped, there WAS vast amounts of unclimbed rock and no one back then had even the slightest idea of where rock climbing was heading with the massive leap in standards in the 80s and 90s.
I’m not saying that the chipping back then was o.k. Clearly it was incredibly short sighted and utterly selfish. But scarcity of rock was not really high on the agenda in the UK until the mid 90s. In other countries such as France and Italy it has taken even longer for this issue to become a big deal. But even there, where they have vast amounts more rock than we have, the outspoken opposition of climbers like Dave Graham to any form of chipping has slowly won the day, and chipping routes everywhere is slowly starting to be seen as the vandalism that it is.
It is slightly off topic, but I think it's worth clarifying that the ethics with regard to this issue in the UK are precisely the same in Sport Climbing, Trad Climbing and Bouldering:
No new holds are EVER to be created or existing holds improved.
However, if a natural hold has (through wear and tear from climbers) fallen off, then a judgement call has to be made as to whether or not it should be replaced. If this work is done well and by competent and experienced people, this will leave no mess at all and will return the route or boulder into its natural state (i.e before the wear and tear due to climbing damaged it.) (Also at some crags above roads and footpaths, loose blocks need to be trundled or glued to ensure continued access to the crag.)
For those of you who think this only happens on sport routes, I suggest that next time you’re at Stanage, you go and take a look at the jug at the top of The Ace. This was pulled off a number of years ago and was subsequently glued back on – but you can’t tell that from just looking at it from the ground. Also a number of grit routes and boulders, which have had too much climbing traffic and have started to erode badly have had the crumbling surface “treated” to prevent further damage. (As has been mentioned - go and take a look at The Bridestones if you think this kind of work doesn’t occasionally need doing…) The fact that most of you haven’t even realised that this kind of conservation work goes on, suggests that in general, the people doing it do a pretty good job.
So, whilst it certainly does happen at sport crags, the practice is NOT that widespread – at high quality crags like Malham, I can’t think of a single instance of this on any present routes. (As JD pointed out above, there was an infamous incident of a sica’d hold on Unjustified nearly two decades ago, but this was swiftly removed, and the route reclimbed without it) . Where it does happen is at crags with less good quality rock such as Raven’s Tor or The Cornice in Cheedale as Ru has mentioned. At places such as this, when a hold falls off a route, a decision is made as to whether or not to glue it back – factors taken into account are that:
1. Sometimes a hold falling off leaves a crumbling mess behind, which the weather will get into causing more erosion and resulting to significant damage to the crag. In these circumstances, glueing the hold back is almost certainly the best approach.
2. Sometimes a hold falling off destroys a classic route (as ksjs has already said) by rendering it much harder. This is a trickier ethical situation, because you can’t pretend that you are replacing the hold for conservation reasons. There are good arguments on both sides, and usually a sensible decision is made on a case by case basis.
HOWEVER… All of this is of course somewhat off the main subject of this thread.
The situation on the routes discussed in Cornwall is entirely different, where holds have been created, drilled, improved, chipped etc etc... Frankly, it's terrible, whoever is responsible. As Will rightly said higher up this thread – There is NO greater crime in the world of rock climbing than creating or improving holds in any way.
There is a finite amount of rock in the world. In the UK (with the exception of Scotland), we really are running out of the stuff. And rock climbing has developed from pretty much nowhere in 100 years. Think about the people climbing in the UK in 1000 years.
People bulling on about the fact that lots of routes were chipped donkey’s years ago are completely missing the point. When those routes were chipped, there WAS vast amounts of unclimbed rock and no one back then had even the slightest idea of where rock climbing was heading with the massive leap in standards in the 80s and 90s.
I’m not saying that the chipping back then was o.k. Clearly it was incredibly short sighted and utterly selfish. But scarcity of rock was not really high on the agenda in the UK until the mid 90s. In other countries such as France and Italy it has taken even longer for this issue to become a big deal. But even there, where they have vast amounts more rock than we have, the outspoken opposition of climbers like Dave Graham to any form of chipping has slowly won the day, and chipping routes everywhere is slowly starting to be seen as the vandalism that it is.
In reply to Nemo:
we really are running out of the stuff. And rock climbing has developed from pretty much nowhere in 100 years. Think about the people climbing in the UK in 1000 years.
Exactly! Which is a really good reason why we should now be considering the acceptance of bolts.
we really are running out of the stuff. And rock climbing has developed from pretty much nowhere in 100 years. Think about the people climbing in the UK in 1000 years.
Exactly! Which is a really good reason why we should now be considering the acceptance of bolts.
In reply to Al Evans: In a hundred years we'll be bolting holds on outdoors
In reply to Nemo:
So would you advocate repairing obviously chipped holds?
There might be quite a lot of work to do on Manic Strain, and in the slate quarries generally. Not to mention the Bout du Monde.
Like you I feel totally against chipping holds, but at the same time I'm entirely happy that some of the obviously chipped routes are there.
What is the opposite of cognitive dissonance?
So would you advocate repairing obviously chipped holds?
There might be quite a lot of work to do on Manic Strain, and in the slate quarries generally. Not to mention the Bout du Monde.
Like you I feel totally against chipping holds, but at the same time I'm entirely happy that some of the obviously chipped routes are there.
What is the opposite of cognitive dissonance?
In Reply To Al Evans:
No. The bolt wars in this country are over at all major crags, although clearly there are always going to be some small issues at more minor crags where new development is taking place etc.
I really do think some people on this forum should cease the anti sport climbing rhetoric. The way that sport and trad have developed simultaneously in this country over the past 30 years (with a few teething problems in the 80s and 90s admittedly), is a massive tribute to common sense. The diversity and quality of climbing of all types we have on such a small island has been enhanced as a result and really is something we should celebrate and be proud of. There is nowhere else in the world, where within a few hours drive, you could scare yourself witless one day on something like Conan The Librarian, redpoint Liquid Ambar the next, and then drive over to the Peak and do Careless Torque.
And those who want to see trad climbing develop, really do need to embrace sport climbing. At the top end, it is simply not possible to get fit and strong enough by trad alone. You just don’t get the mileage in which is required. All the top trad climbers in the UK – from Dave Macleod, to Ben Bransby, from James Mccaffie to John Dunne - all have spent vast amounts of time sport climbing (or bouldering for the grit centric folks). It’s due to sport climbing fitness and bouldering strength, that trad has made so much progress recently. I’ve never met anyone who climbs over E6 who holds the anti sport attitudes of some people on this forum, who clearly don’t understand the first thing about it.
I do however understand why some people don’t get it: unless you live on the South Coast, there is very little decent sport climbing in the UK under Fr7a, and frankly it doesn’t really start to get good until you make it onto Fr7b+’s like Obsession. Hence it is not difficult to see why people consider climbing amazing routes at Cloggy or Gogarth as so much of a superior pastime to shuffling up some shoddy Fr6a in a rubbish quarry somewhere. But in some ways this is a good thing, as it means that the vast majority of sport climbers in the UK are actually experienced trad climbers or at least have been in the game for quite a while, before they ever make it onto sport climbs – and hence have a decent understanding of the history and culture of various aspects of the sport rather than choosing to engage in just one.
In Reply to woolsack:
The idea that the future of climbing is in jeapordy in this country is utter, utter drivel. The current younger generation, from Ryan Pasquill to James Mccaffie, are the most ethically minded we’ve ever seen. It’s increasingly clear that style of ascent is becoming the most important factor in trad climbing, to differentiate newsworthy ascents. And this is going to become more and more the case as the new routes dry up. So in future you should be looking forward to onsights of the current hardest routes in perfect style – not fretting that the next generation is going to slap a bunch of yellow jugs on them… (If you want to see holds bolted on outdoors, I suggest you go to Orgon in France – and see why none of the top climbers go there any more.)
And In Reply to gallam1:
No – trying to repair the chipped routes of the past from Manic Strain to The Keel, from Cow Udder to Rock Atrocity is clearly pretty much impossible to do without making a much bigger mess. What’s done is done. Those routes and problems now have a place in the history of climbing whether we like it or not. (For the more recent incidents such as those in Cornwall, I suppose the decision whether or not repairs should be undertaken will have to be taken on a case by case basis depending on how confident the repairers are of not making a bigger mess...)
As for the Bout Du Monde, and what happens more widely in the rest of Europe in the future, I suspect they will eventually draw similar conclusions. Stuff like La Rose et La Vampire has a place in the history of climbing. They were routes of their time. But as I said before – the finite amount of available rock is finally hitting home pretty much everywhere.
No. The bolt wars in this country are over at all major crags, although clearly there are always going to be some small issues at more minor crags where new development is taking place etc.
I really do think some people on this forum should cease the anti sport climbing rhetoric. The way that sport and trad have developed simultaneously in this country over the past 30 years (with a few teething problems in the 80s and 90s admittedly), is a massive tribute to common sense. The diversity and quality of climbing of all types we have on such a small island has been enhanced as a result and really is something we should celebrate and be proud of. There is nowhere else in the world, where within a few hours drive, you could scare yourself witless one day on something like Conan The Librarian, redpoint Liquid Ambar the next, and then drive over to the Peak and do Careless Torque.
And those who want to see trad climbing develop, really do need to embrace sport climbing. At the top end, it is simply not possible to get fit and strong enough by trad alone. You just don’t get the mileage in which is required. All the top trad climbers in the UK – from Dave Macleod, to Ben Bransby, from James Mccaffie to John Dunne - all have spent vast amounts of time sport climbing (or bouldering for the grit centric folks). It’s due to sport climbing fitness and bouldering strength, that trad has made so much progress recently. I’ve never met anyone who climbs over E6 who holds the anti sport attitudes of some people on this forum, who clearly don’t understand the first thing about it.
I do however understand why some people don’t get it: unless you live on the South Coast, there is very little decent sport climbing in the UK under Fr7a, and frankly it doesn’t really start to get good until you make it onto Fr7b+’s like Obsession. Hence it is not difficult to see why people consider climbing amazing routes at Cloggy or Gogarth as so much of a superior pastime to shuffling up some shoddy Fr6a in a rubbish quarry somewhere. But in some ways this is a good thing, as it means that the vast majority of sport climbers in the UK are actually experienced trad climbers or at least have been in the game for quite a while, before they ever make it onto sport climbs – and hence have a decent understanding of the history and culture of various aspects of the sport rather than choosing to engage in just one.
In Reply to woolsack:
The idea that the future of climbing is in jeapordy in this country is utter, utter drivel. The current younger generation, from Ryan Pasquill to James Mccaffie, are the most ethically minded we’ve ever seen. It’s increasingly clear that style of ascent is becoming the most important factor in trad climbing, to differentiate newsworthy ascents. And this is going to become more and more the case as the new routes dry up. So in future you should be looking forward to onsights of the current hardest routes in perfect style – not fretting that the next generation is going to slap a bunch of yellow jugs on them… (If you want to see holds bolted on outdoors, I suggest you go to Orgon in France – and see why none of the top climbers go there any more.)
And In Reply to gallam1:
No – trying to repair the chipped routes of the past from Manic Strain to The Keel, from Cow Udder to Rock Atrocity is clearly pretty much impossible to do without making a much bigger mess. What’s done is done. Those routes and problems now have a place in the history of climbing whether we like it or not. (For the more recent incidents such as those in Cornwall, I suppose the decision whether or not repairs should be undertaken will have to be taken on a case by case basis depending on how confident the repairers are of not making a bigger mess...)
As for the Bout Du Monde, and what happens more widely in the rest of Europe in the future, I suspect they will eventually draw similar conclusions. Stuff like La Rose et La Vampire has a place in the history of climbing. They were routes of their time. But as I said before – the finite amount of available rock is finally hitting home pretty much everywhere.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
I assume you don't mean Rowland climbed these routes of E7/8 at the age of 50
I assume you don't mean Rowland climbed these routes of E7/8 at the age of 50
In reply to Nemo:
The thing is, this hold chipping business is quite slippery.
How did you feel about this:
"Alfa Romeo hood ornament riveted loosely in the middle of a 10' blank slab"
Outraged? Or was it OK because one of the pioneers of the current generation's ethics did it?
The thing is, this hold chipping business is quite slippery.
How did you feel about this:
"Alfa Romeo hood ornament riveted loosely in the middle of a 10' blank slab"
Outraged? Or was it OK because one of the pioneers of the current generation's ethics did it?
In reply to Nemo: Superb post Cap'n.
In reply to Tam Stone:
Agreed. Nemo's post has to be one of the most sensible, well-informed and well-balanced that I've read on here in years.
Agreed. Nemo's post has to be one of the most sensible, well-informed and well-balanced that I've read on here in years.
In reply to Nemo:
Fantastic post Nemo but I have to pick you up on this - I have personal experience of this at Malham and Kilnsey - two classic crags where sport and trad exist side by side in harmony.
However, I feel that this is being eroded by one or two people not using common sense. The odd bolt here and there has been creeping in over the years, great E5's which make classic 7a's.
A good E2 bolted to link into a classic 6C. A brilliant E3 bolted.
It's not a new thing - I remember climbing Directissima with Andy Mitch in 1985 - pre P-Hangers - much more memorable than the sandbag 6b+ it is now.
Just one other thing - I think there's only one person on this thread who's anti sport climbing.
E
> In Reply To Al Evans:
>
> I really do think some people on this forum should cease the anti sport climbing rhetoric. The way that sport and trad have developed simultaneously in this country over the past 30 years (with a few teething problems in the 80s and 90s admittedly), is a massive tribute to common sense.
> I really do think some people on this forum should cease the anti sport climbing rhetoric. The way that sport and trad have developed simultaneously in this country over the past 30 years (with a few teething problems in the 80s and 90s admittedly), is a massive tribute to common sense.
Fantastic post Nemo but I have to pick you up on this - I have personal experience of this at Malham and Kilnsey - two classic crags where sport and trad exist side by side in harmony.
However, I feel that this is being eroded by one or two people not using common sense. The odd bolt here and there has been creeping in over the years, great E5's which make classic 7a's.
A good E2 bolted to link into a classic 6C. A brilliant E3 bolted.
It's not a new thing - I remember climbing Directissima with Andy Mitch in 1985 - pre P-Hangers - much more memorable than the sandbag 6b+ it is now.
Just one other thing - I think there's only one person on this thread who's anti sport climbing.
E
In reply to Nemo:
Incidentally, and kind of tangentially related to this discussion, someone told me the other day that it is quite common for NBA basketball players to be able to jump and catch the top of the backboard, which is at 12 feet.
Incidentally, and kind of tangentially related to this discussion, someone told me the other day that it is quite common for NBA basketball players to be able to jump and catch the top of the backboard, which is at 12 feet.
In reply to UKC News: Also tangentially related, professional sportsman get hit in the pocket book when they cheat!
In reply to Nemo: The only way climbing in this country will survive as an adventure experience is by the gradual erosion and rending of of "sport climbing", and an acceptance of the fact that Trad climbing will ensure a modicum of future challenges.
Bolting rock down to acceptable current levels of ability and bravery eats up a limited resource too quickly.
Bolting rock down to acceptable current levels of ability and bravery eats up a limited resource too quickly.
I'm sure when I visited this thread earlier this morning there was a post quoting an email from someone called 'Egbert' or something similar supporting Mark Edwards & a follow up from Allan James.
Was I imagining that ? what's going on ? or was it on another thread
Was I imagining that ? what's going on ? or was it on another thread
In reply to stroppygob: That' not happening though, well not widespread.
"Bolting rock down to acceptable current levels of ability and bravery eats up a limited resource too quickly."
Grit and mountainous areas have generally remained bolt free. There are plenty of unclimbed potential routes out there.
"Bolting rock down to acceptable current levels of ability and bravery eats up a limited resource too quickly."
Grit and mountainous areas have generally remained bolt free. There are plenty of unclimbed potential routes out there.
In reply to Doug:
Hi Doug
I removed that since it contained a private email from me. I have requested Will repost without that email.
Our policy on this thread is not to give UKC editorial comment beyond the starter post.
Alan
Hi Doug
I removed that since it contained a private email from me. I have requested Will repost without that email.
Our policy on this thread is not to give UKC editorial comment beyond the starter post.
Alan
In reply to Doug:
I read that post with interest as well and wondered where it had gone.
So Egbert Dozekal was taking photo's...the words 'photo shoot' cropped up suggesting more than an amateur snapper.
Egbert has replied to enquiries etc so he must have the pics that are needed to clear this up.I'm not sure the post does anything other than add another layer of obfuscation.
lets see the photo's.
Andy W, West Penwith.
I read that post with interest as well and wondered where it had gone.
So Egbert Dozekal was taking photo's...the words 'photo shoot' cropped up suggesting more than an amateur snapper.
Egbert has replied to enquiries etc so he must have the pics that are needed to clear this up.I'm not sure the post does anything other than add another layer of obfuscation.
lets see the photo's.
Andy W, West Penwith.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
How about an editorial policy that has a commitment and responsibility to following up an initially provocative and sensitive 'news' issue with something that might constitute responsible investigative journalism. Surely the initial piece was 'news' and not an 'editorial comment' anyhow.I would have thought that now is the time for an editorial comment.
How about an editorial policy that has a commitment and responsibility to following up an initially provocative and sensitive 'news' issue with something that might constitute responsible investigative journalism. Surely the initial piece was 'news' and not an 'editorial comment' anyhow.I would have thought that now is the time for an editorial comment.
In reply to Nemo: As you say whats done is done. Maybe its best to leave these physical blemishes on the rock face to remind us of the blemish on climbing ethics?
Rather than in years to come looking at the cold result in a guide book we can always be reminded of a climb that ought to really be called Cornish Controversy.
Rather than in years to come looking at the cold result in a guide book we can always be reminded of a climb that ought to really be called Cornish Controversy.
In reply to UKC News:
I'll re post seeing as I failed so miserably earlier on.
I received the following e mail from Egbert on Sat and sent it to UKC to see if they were interested in what he had to say. They were but the only evidence they believe could clear this up are the fabled high res photos that are not being released.
Here is the email from Egbert;
Will,
I am just about to leave for Switzerland for two weeks, hence just a short reply to your mail, which you may forward to Jack Geldard.
On 29th of August last year, I went with Mark, his partner Andrea and Rowland to take photos of his ascent of the First and Last Wall. After watching his ascent, which he made in style, I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then.
It appears from the photos taken by Nic Sellers that someone has been on the route chipping and drilling those placements, which is a shame indeed.
Best regards
Egbert
UKC responded and I forwarded the email to Egbert which detailed what they were after. Egbert made the following reply;
Hello Will,
You can feel free to use my reply and post it on the thread.
I won’t do it myself, as I have presented my statement based on my own observations. And that’s it for me.
I have enjoyed watching Mark’s ascent and top roping the new route - with the hope to repeat it one day. Although it may never be the same, after someone chipped the slots.
If people prefer not to believe Mark’s account of his ascent, it is their choice. And climbing is too much fun, and it is not worth to fight court-like battles about belief or disbelief of first ascents.
Best greetings
Egbert
I think this is the first evidence in support of Marks position after his initial comment in the article and a few years ago would have been good enough.
With reference to Andy W's post I don't think this adds another layer of obfuscation, you either accept it or you don't, if you don't then you have to say there all in it together.
Will
I'll re post seeing as I failed so miserably earlier on.
I received the following e mail from Egbert on Sat and sent it to UKC to see if they were interested in what he had to say. They were but the only evidence they believe could clear this up are the fabled high res photos that are not being released.
Here is the email from Egbert;
Will,
I am just about to leave for Switzerland for two weeks, hence just a short reply to your mail, which you may forward to Jack Geldard.
On 29th of August last year, I went with Mark, his partner Andrea and Rowland to take photos of his ascent of the First and Last Wall. After watching his ascent, which he made in style, I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then.
It appears from the photos taken by Nic Sellers that someone has been on the route chipping and drilling those placements, which is a shame indeed.
Best regards
Egbert
UKC responded and I forwarded the email to Egbert which detailed what they were after. Egbert made the following reply;
Hello Will,
You can feel free to use my reply and post it on the thread.
I won’t do it myself, as I have presented my statement based on my own observations. And that’s it for me.
I have enjoyed watching Mark’s ascent and top roping the new route - with the hope to repeat it one day. Although it may never be the same, after someone chipped the slots.
If people prefer not to believe Mark’s account of his ascent, it is their choice. And climbing is too much fun, and it is not worth to fight court-like battles about belief or disbelief of first ascents.
Best greetings
Egbert
I think this is the first evidence in support of Marks position after his initial comment in the article and a few years ago would have been good enough.
With reference to Andy W's post I don't think this adds another layer of obfuscation, you either accept it or you don't, if you don't then you have to say there all in it together.
Will
In reply to Will1:
Sorry but my little brain is struggling to comprehend!
Is this Egburt chap, whose email would seem to corroborates the Edwards' story, the same as Eggburt1952, who posted quite damningly higher up the thread?
Sorry but my little brain is struggling to comprehend!
Is this Egburt chap, whose email would seem to corroborates the Edwards' story, the same as Eggburt1952, who posted quite damningly higher up the thread?
In reply to Max factor:
No, two different people.
No, two different people.
In reply to liz j:
Certainly doesn't sound like Egg. Sounds more like Daisy. Or is that just being cynical......
> (In reply to Max factor)
> No, two different people.
> No, two different people.
Certainly doesn't sound like Egg. Sounds more like Daisy. Or is that just being cynical......
In reply to jon:
Egbert Dozekal, it would seem that he and the Edwards go back a long way, so he is a real person.
Egbert Dozekal, it would seem that he and the Edwards go back a long way, so he is a real person.
Egbert Dozekal is a real person and perhaps surprisingly a mutual friend of both myself and the Edwards's he is an honorable man who's evidence I would not in general doubt. i asked him via e-mail to contact me to discuss this issue and i am waiting for a reply.
egg
egg
In reply to liz j:
What a coincidence that Eggy Everitt has been known as such all his life and chose the user name Eggburt! Wouldn't it be ironic if M was telling the truth!
What a coincidence that Eggy Everitt has been known as such all his life and chose the user name Eggburt! Wouldn't it be ironic if M was telling the truth!
In reply to UKC News: The plot thickens slightly but all MEdwards has to do to settle it either way is to post his high res photo. If he doesn`t, people will draw their own conclusions.
In reply to Chris H: Isn't it about time for another comment from Nic Sellars? Could he have been mistaken? And if not who are the local activists that would do this to besmirch Marks image, and if they exist, why? Somebody local must know who the perpetrator was?
In reply to Max factor: Egbert Dozekal to be sure.
In reply to Will1: There's obviously no guarantee that these photos will be conclusive of course...
In reply to Will1:
could egbert possibly comment as to who the four other witnesses were as he only mentions himself, Andrea and R Edwards being present?
could egbert possibly comment as to who the four other witnesses were as he only mentions himself, Andrea and R Edwards being present?
In reply to Chris H:
I have now been sent a copy of the photo which was printed in Climb. Although it is clearer than the print version all it really does is show that Mark used the same placements as Nic, plus a couple that Nic didn't use (Nic did comment that two of the slots were so poor he didn't bother with them).
The information I received from Mark did suggest that he used different gear placements, including one slot 2m to the left of the line. He also suggested that one of the slots Nic used wasn't there when he did the route. This is not supported by the photo of the first ascent, but it is easy to get gear details wrong.
Mark later suggested that he cleaned the slots he used out with a knife and that he thought they may have been drilled after this. Nic used the smallest cams for his ascent which tends to suggest that, if they were drilled after Mark's ascent, then the slots weren't actually enlarged to a bigger cam size.
In my opinion we are never going to get to the bottom of this. We have strong accounts either way including one eye-witness account supporting Mark's version. I don't think anything more conclusive can be added to this debate.
Alan
> (In reply to UKC News) The plot thickens slightly but all MEdwards has to do to settle it either way is to post his high res photo. If he doesn`t, people will draw their own conclusions.
I have now been sent a copy of the photo which was printed in Climb. Although it is clearer than the print version all it really does is show that Mark used the same placements as Nic, plus a couple that Nic didn't use (Nic did comment that two of the slots were so poor he didn't bother with them).
The information I received from Mark did suggest that he used different gear placements, including one slot 2m to the left of the line. He also suggested that one of the slots Nic used wasn't there when he did the route. This is not supported by the photo of the first ascent, but it is easy to get gear details wrong.
Mark later suggested that he cleaned the slots he used out with a knife and that he thought they may have been drilled after this. Nic used the smallest cams for his ascent which tends to suggest that, if they were drilled after Mark's ascent, then the slots weren't actually enlarged to a bigger cam size.
In my opinion we are never going to get to the bottom of this. We have strong accounts either way including one eye-witness account supporting Mark's version. I don't think anything more conclusive can be added to this debate.
Alan
In reply to Serpico:
A couple were Mark's own routes, but I've also seen him on established routes at the same grades.
> (In reply to Rob Naylor)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Was this on their routes or other established routes that have had their grades confirmed? Because many of Mark's routes have been found to be massively over graded.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Was this on their routes or other established routes that have had their grades confirmed? Because many of Mark's routes have been found to be massively over graded.
A couple were Mark's own routes, but I've also seen him on established routes at the same grades.
In reply to Theclimbinglab:
No, "in the last couple of years" should make it obvious that I meant Mark...he's the one around 50 now...Rowland's in his 70s.
> (In reply to Rob Naylor)
>
> I assume you don't mean Rowland climbed these routes of E7/8 at the age of 50
>
> I assume you don't mean Rowland climbed these routes of E7/8 at the age of 50
No, "in the last couple of years" should make it obvious that I meant Mark...he's the one around 50 now...Rowland's in his 70s.
Egbert dozekal is a very good photographer and is likely to have several pictures(of the subsequent ascent 20 days after the FA) which would give a better idea of the placement positions. I think that it is important for the climbing community to get to the bottom of this as if ME is innocent as he claims that means that someone who would have to be local has been vandalising his routes for a period of 30yrs incredible as that seems . It seems to me that ME is in a postion to exonerate himself by naming his seven witness's to the first ascent and to release all photo evidence so that if he is telling the truth he can clear his name surely this is in his best interest.Why is he silent on this matter perhaps he could shed some light as to who the mystery vandal might be? who ever it is they need to be found and stopped. Don't leave this hanging in the air like it was in the 80's time we got to the truth .
egg
egg
Thinking about this, does the work of the phantom driller (very neat regular slots) bear much comparison to Mark's very rough daubings with the sica?
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
In reply to Alan James - UKC: That is a complete and utter cop out. Pathetic!
In reply to JonC:
Chipping/drilling/sculpting would be much easier to make look neat with a drill, than Sika and a knife...
> Thinking about this, does the work of the phantom driller (very neat regular slots) bear much comparison to Mark's very rough daubings with the sica?
>
> Just a thought...
>
> Just a thought...
Chipping/drilling/sculpting would be much easier to make look neat with a drill, than Sika and a knife...
In reply to Tam Stone:
I can see why you interpreted it as that. I actually welcome Egg's desire to investigate further and I agree that what was left to rot in the 1980s shouldn't be left to rot again. Only Mark can help though in this respect and so far he seems to prefer the ostrich approach.
What I meant by my statement is that I won't be putting any more effort into following up this specific issue. This is for 2 reasons:
1) I have had a lot of email communication with Mark and others over the last week or so regarding the chipping of FandL and the photos, and the end result is not conclusive. I don't think we can take that line of enquiry any further, although if Eggburt comes up with more photos then perhaps.
2) I am going on holiday in 3 hours time, for 3 weeks, without Internet connection.
Alan
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) That is a complete and utter cop out. Pathetic!
I can see why you interpreted it as that. I actually welcome Egg's desire to investigate further and I agree that what was left to rot in the 1980s shouldn't be left to rot again. Only Mark can help though in this respect and so far he seems to prefer the ostrich approach.
What I meant by my statement is that I won't be putting any more effort into following up this specific issue. This is for 2 reasons:
1) I have had a lot of email communication with Mark and others over the last week or so regarding the chipping of FandL and the photos, and the end result is not conclusive. I don't think we can take that line of enquiry any further, although if Eggburt comes up with more photos then perhaps.
2) I am going on holiday in 3 hours time, for 3 weeks, without Internet connection.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Exactly why the locals who are accused should expose their thoughts on who may be vindictive enough to besmirch Marks name I would have thought?
> (In reply to Tam Stone)
I have had a lot of email communication with Mark and others over the last week or so regarding the chipping of FandL and the photos, and the end result is not conclusive. I don't think we can take that line of enquiry any further, although if Eggburt comes up with more photos then perhaps.Exactly why the locals who are accused should expose their thoughts on who may be vindictive enough to besmirch Marks name I would have thought?
In reply to Alan James - UKC: Thanks for the response, I take my post back in that case and hope that you have a great time on holiday.
just got back from shunting it and i mean it , this is a totally created route from top to bottom almost every hold on it has obviously been chipped and sculpted with large sections of rock removed on an industrial scale the person who did this was in the route creating business not personal defamation;- all the little square cuts are in just the right places I'm amazed that Nic and Shane did'nt comment on this, there is no doubt that the slots are custom made, they don't all take the same sise cam but they are all bommber. this crumbly piece of shit wall should have been left as it was and not used as a canvas for someones ego!!being old and techo challenged haven't worked out how to post the photos but have about 80 of them.
egg
egg
I've uploaded about a dozen of them but they don't appear in the rock climbing gallery that i put them in under my user name Eggburt1952. do they usually take a while to be posted ?i've not done this before
egg
egg
In reply to eggburt1952:
Now there - http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
When I spoke to both Nic and Shane, they both did suggest that a lot of the holds on the route were "heavily cleaned".
Alan
Now there - http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
When I spoke to both Nic and Shane, they both did suggest that a lot of the holds on the route were "heavily cleaned".
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
That is appalling. Certainly not what you would expect on a new route, more like a route that has had heavy use and THEN modified to get sharper holds.
That is appalling. Certainly not what you would expect on a new route, more like a route that has had heavy use and THEN modified to get sharper holds.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Jaysus, never mind First and Last Wall, why not just call it Mount Rushmore and have done with it?!
Jaysus, never mind First and Last Wall, why not just call it Mount Rushmore and have done with it?!
In reply to Steve Parker:
Those photos are just close ups of what you can already see clearly in the main article photo of Nic Sellers, surely a high resolution picture of the original ascent isnt needed to see that all that damage had been done? It sounds like there isnt much doubt that Mark Edwards is the culprit, but proof would expose him not only as a cheat but a liar too.
If it really wasnt him, seems unlikely, he needs to step up and produce the evidence, and he will be owed a massive apology.
Those photos are just close ups of what you can already see clearly in the main article photo of Nic Sellers, surely a high resolution picture of the original ascent isnt needed to see that all that damage had been done? It sounds like there isnt much doubt that Mark Edwards is the culprit, but proof would expose him not only as a cheat but a liar too.
If it really wasnt him, seems unlikely, he needs to step up and produce the evidence, and he will be owed a massive apology.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Yet Egbert said "I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements."
I've not seen the photos, but these two statements don't seem to tie up?
> all it really does is show that Mark used the same placements as Nic, plus a couple that Nic didn't use (Nic did comment that two of the slots were so poor he didn't bother with them).
Yet Egbert said "I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements."
I've not seen the photos, but these two statements don't seem to tie up?
In reply to UKC News:
SO we have gone from robbing future generations of a last great problem to a manufactured route up a crumbly chossy wall. There is a history of manufactured routes in the UK; Dog Fight Massacre at Virgin Creek at Hodge Close and Cruel Sea at Cathedral Quarry, both by well known cutting edge climbers of their day. At the time they believed that the quarrys were open game unlike mountain rock or grit. Of course the protagonists soon saw the light and/or the collective concensus on UK ethics confirmed the "rules".
My big problem with the Edwardses is that thay seem to insist on operating in isolation in their two kingdoms of Cornwall and Echo Valley (Please correct me if I am wrong). And also in a timewarp since cutting themselves off from the rest of UK climbing around 20 years ago (coincidentally when the Lake District slate routes were chipped).I spoke to Rowland many years ago when I bumped into him on Dream Liberator about Berry Head just across the county line "Oh we never climb there".
So for most of us Cornwall is a great trad climbing meeca whilst Mark and Rowland seem to want it to be all things, trad, grit type headpointing, sport etc in their private little world anfd time warp. It is OK to use sika to ocasionally preserve an established move on a Yorkshire sports crag so why not in Cornwall? People chipped routes 20 years ago so why not now? They seem to see no need in participating in the rest of UK climbing, keeping abreast of ethics and GRADE CONCENSUS etc. And particualry in recognising that the strength in UK climbing is the diversity of different disciplines by applying different ethics to the appropriate crags.
DISCLAIMER: If evidence emerges to show I have got the above wrong I wil appologies in full, buy Mark and Ed a round and book myself on a Compass West Holiday.
SO we have gone from robbing future generations of a last great problem to a manufactured route up a crumbly chossy wall. There is a history of manufactured routes in the UK; Dog Fight Massacre at Virgin Creek at Hodge Close and Cruel Sea at Cathedral Quarry, both by well known cutting edge climbers of their day. At the time they believed that the quarrys were open game unlike mountain rock or grit. Of course the protagonists soon saw the light and/or the collective concensus on UK ethics confirmed the "rules".
My big problem with the Edwardses is that thay seem to insist on operating in isolation in their two kingdoms of Cornwall and Echo Valley (Please correct me if I am wrong). And also in a timewarp since cutting themselves off from the rest of UK climbing around 20 years ago (coincidentally when the Lake District slate routes were chipped).I spoke to Rowland many years ago when I bumped into him on Dream Liberator about Berry Head just across the county line "Oh we never climb there".
So for most of us Cornwall is a great trad climbing meeca whilst Mark and Rowland seem to want it to be all things, trad, grit type headpointing, sport etc in their private little world anfd time warp. It is OK to use sika to ocasionally preserve an established move on a Yorkshire sports crag so why not in Cornwall? People chipped routes 20 years ago so why not now? They seem to see no need in participating in the rest of UK climbing, keeping abreast of ethics and GRADE CONCENSUS etc. And particualry in recognising that the strength in UK climbing is the diversity of different disciplines by applying different ethics to the appropriate crags.
DISCLAIMER: If evidence emerges to show I have got the above wrong I wil appologies in full, buy Mark and Ed a round and book myself on a Compass West Holiday.
In reply to eggburt1952:
This is my favourite: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
This is my favourite: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
In reply to eggburt1952:
Christ that's awful. What is the duckin point? Cleaning my ass. Whichever Michelangelo did this needs to get a grip - yes, it's just a piece of rock, but that's exactly why it ain't worth spraying all over it like a randy tom cat. Walk away man.
Also, loving the Anasazi/woolly sock combo, nice.
Christ that's awful. What is the duckin point? Cleaning my ass. Whichever Michelangelo did this needs to get a grip - yes, it's just a piece of rock, but that's exactly why it ain't worth spraying all over it like a randy tom cat. Walk away man.
Also, loving the Anasazi/woolly sock combo, nice.
In reply to eggburt1952: Thank you for your hard work in investigating this. The truth is very ugly - an industrial manufactured route at total odds with the beautiful environment in which it is found.
In reply to Kafoozalem:
A quote from the profile of Medward.
"Climbing enables me to enjoy nature in its purest form, it gives me a great sense of well being and keeps me fit. The technical and mental challenge of climbing is exhilarating. I enjoy the diversity of rock and the fact that each move or step you make requires you to employ your skills in a new and fresh way."
It's a shame that he doesn't seem to adhere to his first sentence.
A quote from the profile of Medward.
"Climbing enables me to enjoy nature in its purest form, it gives me a great sense of well being and keeps me fit. The technical and mental challenge of climbing is exhilarating. I enjoy the diversity of rock and the fact that each move or step you make requires you to employ your skills in a new and fresh way."
It's a shame that he doesn't seem to adhere to his first sentence.
In reply to Lusk:
Hence my word 'seem'
Hence my word 'seem'
In reply to liz j:
I've got a dodgy right eye at the moment, so everything's a bit blearily at the moment, sorry.
I've got a dodgy right eye at the moment, so everything's a bit blearily at the moment, sorry.
In reply to Lusk:
Granite dust??
Granite dust??
In reply to jon:
It does seem slightly odd that Nick Sellers noticed and photographed the drilled cam slots but not this letterbox-sized jug nor any of the other obvious chipped edges. Shane doesn't seem to make much of this either.
It would be interesting to hear their comments on these latest photographs. It's even more disturbing if this route is evolving while we watch.
It does seem slightly odd that Nick Sellers noticed and photographed the drilled cam slots but not this letterbox-sized jug nor any of the other obvious chipped edges. Shane doesn't seem to make much of this either.
It would be interesting to hear their comments on these latest photographs. It's even more disturbing if this route is evolving while we watch.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
It was Shane's number 1 point.
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
It was Shane's number 1 point.
In reply to liz j:
OK, I did look for it but could find Shane's post again among the 7OO+ on the dodgy wifi in Dubai airport!
Positive,incut finger jugs seems to be understating some of what's in the current photos!
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Control f lets you search for words in a thread etc;
Shane said;
We both flashed the route on top rope and a number of characteristics of the route were immediately obvious:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
2) More or less evenly spaced throughout the hard climbing were blatantly drilled slots for small cams
3) The climbing was significantly easier than the grade suggested.
Control f lets you search for words in a thread etc;
Shane said;
We both flashed the route on top rope and a number of characteristics of the route were immediately obvious:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
2) More or less evenly spaced throughout the hard climbing were blatantly drilled slots for small cams
3) The climbing was significantly easier than the grade suggested.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
That's what puzzles me, if these manufactured letterboxes were there earlier the surely someone would hace made more of it? Cos they are a bit more than enhanced micro cam placements!!
> (In reply to jon)
>
> It does seem slightly odd that Nick Sellers noticed and photographed the drilled cam slots but not this letterbox-sized jug nor any of the other obvious chipped edges. Shane doesn't seem to make much of this either.
>
> It would be interesting to hear their comments on these latest photographs. It's even more disturbing if this route is evolving while we watch.
>
> It does seem slightly odd that Nick Sellers noticed and photographed the drilled cam slots but not this letterbox-sized jug nor any of the other obvious chipped edges. Shane doesn't seem to make much of this either.
>
> It would be interesting to hear their comments on these latest photographs. It's even more disturbing if this route is evolving while we watch.
That's what puzzles me, if these manufactured letterboxes were there earlier the surely someone would hace made more of it? Cos they are a bit more than enhanced micro cam placements!!
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
A note of caution about these photos - the rock is clearly very coarse grained granite and it will naturally be fragile at a surface level. Sometimes when knocking obviously loose stuff off a reasonably sharp edge is actually what remains. It is the sort of rock that does take a lot of cleaning.
I agree that some of these photos look questionable but I don't accept that they necessarily prove deliberate chipping/hold improvement.
In any event, it seems some people commenting on these photos want to have it both ways - on the one hand slagging the Edwards if they glue unstable holds back on and on the other slating them if they clean them off.
If they had done neither we could presumably also blame them for not cleaning the rock properly and for leaving booby trapped holds.
But on the question of the drilled cam slots it seems to now be down to who's word you take. The idea of the mystery chipper turning up some time after Marks ascent to discredit him is clearly wildly improbable - to the point of being very probable bullsh*t - I know who I believe.
A note of caution about these photos - the rock is clearly very coarse grained granite and it will naturally be fragile at a surface level. Sometimes when knocking obviously loose stuff off a reasonably sharp edge is actually what remains. It is the sort of rock that does take a lot of cleaning.
I agree that some of these photos look questionable but I don't accept that they necessarily prove deliberate chipping/hold improvement.
In any event, it seems some people commenting on these photos want to have it both ways - on the one hand slagging the Edwards if they glue unstable holds back on and on the other slating them if they clean them off.
If they had done neither we could presumably also blame them for not cleaning the rock properly and for leaving booby trapped holds.
But on the question of the drilled cam slots it seems to now be down to who's word you take. The idea of the mystery chipper turning up some time after Marks ascent to discredit him is clearly wildly improbable - to the point of being very probable bullsh*t - I know who I believe.
In reply to colin struthers:
I agree entirely. Geology itself does very strange things. For instance I came across this strange but entirely natural rock formation in the south of England:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Art_Rodin_The_Kiss.jpg
>
> I agree that some of these photos look questionable but I don't accept that they necessarily prove deliberate chipping/hold improvement.
> I agree that some of these photos look questionable but I don't accept that they necessarily prove deliberate chipping/hold improvement.
I agree entirely. Geology itself does very strange things. For instance I came across this strange but entirely natural rock formation in the south of England:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Art_Rodin_The_Kiss.jpg
In reply to Steve Parker:
Ha Ha. Very good.
But on a serious note, have you ever actually cleaned a wall of crumbly granite? - I have and the amount of crap that has to be shifted to get down to solid rock is quite surprising and crimpy edges are sometimes what remains.
Don't get me wrong - I said the photos look questionable and as you will see from my previous post, I am no supporter of the Edwards.
However, in my experience recently cleaned new routes on both granite and quarried limestone can sometimes produce holds that look like they are manufactured when in fact they are nothing more than the result of attempts to get to underlying solid rock. Take a look at many sports crags and you will see a lot of holds that look 'dodgy' even though the first ascentionist has had no intention of 'creating' or 'improving' anything.
I just wanted to point this out before we get into a whole rash of michelangelo accusations.
Ha Ha. Very good.
But on a serious note, have you ever actually cleaned a wall of crumbly granite? - I have and the amount of crap that has to be shifted to get down to solid rock is quite surprising and crimpy edges are sometimes what remains.
Don't get me wrong - I said the photos look questionable and as you will see from my previous post, I am no supporter of the Edwards.
However, in my experience recently cleaned new routes on both granite and quarried limestone can sometimes produce holds that look like they are manufactured when in fact they are nothing more than the result of attempts to get to underlying solid rock. Take a look at many sports crags and you will see a lot of holds that look 'dodgy' even though the first ascentionist has had no intention of 'creating' or 'improving' anything.
I just wanted to point this out before we get into a whole rash of michelangelo accusations.
This was not cleaning!!!! i deliberately posted a couple of photos of sections of the ironstone intrusions on this wall one of which was hacked off mechanicaly with heavy use of force all the way down the route to create holds. you can see what these seams look like in their natural state and i tested by hand how stable they were, apart from the surface gittyness you would not be able to remove them without a hammer, cold chisel, and or drill.The upper seam appeared to have been cleaned out by running a drill up and down it to dig out holds and runner slots, as for the letter box slot jugs the one in the picture is just the worst example because of it's sise, there are at least another 5 or 6 foothold size similar holds just drilled out in blank sections of rock not to mention large chunks of rock removed from the top,middle and bottom of the route, infact the key rail which provides 3or 4 holds to access the wall above the starting crack was formed by the removal of a flake of rock 3ft long 8-10" wide as shown in the pictures. In conclusion this is a man made sport route constucted in a region that the BMC has deemed to be trad with no bolts no chipping no drilled cam slots no major rock alteration etc etc it is at lands end and the cliffs are owned by the lands end co who i'm not sure would happy that someone is practising sculpture on their natural assets ( they control access here!!)does anyone see scars on the wall imediately ajacent to the line of the route?? this is vandalism pure and simple and no it's not a work in progress as suggested by some buffoon look at the pictures of Nic Sellars the scars are all there.I have seen the photo of ME on one of his ascents and can confirm that his runners are in exactly the same places as the drilled out cam slots and the scars from hold creation can clearly be seen this photo can't be posted without his permission perhaps in the interest of clarity he would now like to give that permission.
egg
egg
In reply to UKC News:
Hi
I have just been informed of this, so a bit behind the times
I have climbed with Mark over the years and have held his ropes on a number of occassions on his first ascents, I haven't been climbing much over the last few years due to other commitments, but last summer called down to see Mark, he was talking quite excitedly about this route and couldn't wait to take me down and show it to me, this was as I recall the week after he did it, while I did not take binoculars to look at the Detail! You can see the route quite clearly from the top, the top of the adjacent cliif is at right angles to the wall, I must say at this point there was nothing questionable about this wall, in fact he was trying to twist my arm to have a go on a top rope, as I often did in the past on a number of hi ascents, I declined!!
If there was anything that he would not want anyone to see he would not have asked, he knows well that I would not have been impressed!
Having seen him climbing I really don't know why people keep challenging and causing issues like this
Why don't they ask and go with him for a few days
I note that after all the controversy of his other ascents that a young talented climber was in the magazines recently and commented he thought if anything some of these climbs were undergraded, interesting!!
I know Mark has been waiting for a long time hoping they had other ascents so that the grades could be ratified or otherwise legitimately!!
Hi
I have just been informed of this, so a bit behind the times
I have climbed with Mark over the years and have held his ropes on a number of occassions on his first ascents, I haven't been climbing much over the last few years due to other commitments, but last summer called down to see Mark, he was talking quite excitedly about this route and couldn't wait to take me down and show it to me, this was as I recall the week after he did it, while I did not take binoculars to look at the Detail! You can see the route quite clearly from the top, the top of the adjacent cliif is at right angles to the wall, I must say at this point there was nothing questionable about this wall, in fact he was trying to twist my arm to have a go on a top rope, as I often did in the past on a number of hi ascents, I declined!!
If there was anything that he would not want anyone to see he would not have asked, he knows well that I would not have been impressed!
Having seen him climbing I really don't know why people keep challenging and causing issues like this
Why don't they ask and go with him for a few days
I note that after all the controversy of his other ascents that a young talented climber was in the magazines recently and commented he thought if anything some of these climbs were undergraded, interesting!!
I know Mark has been waiting for a long time hoping they had other ascents so that the grades could be ratified or otherwise legitimately!!
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> Now there - http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
>
> When I spoke to both Nic and Shane, they both did suggest that a lot of the holds on the route were "heavily cleaned".
>
> Alan
>
> Now there - http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
>
> When I spoke to both Nic and Shane, they both did suggest that a lot of the holds on the route were "heavily cleaned".
>
> Alan
Wow!
I too went and had a look at FALW with Kevin, Mark and Rowland and others, a few days after Mark had climbed it. I didn't comment before as the photos in the article were of slots that I'd have needed binoculars to see properly, and we didn't have any with us.
However, I can categorically state that the large horribly damaged areas seen on THESE photos were NOT there the week after Mark's ascent. They would have been easily visible from the angle we were standing at. His chalk marks certainly were. I'd state that on oath, or under a polygraph.
I'm not a close personal friend of Mark, he's an acquaintance met through Kevin, but I've found him to be open about things that he *has* done against prevailing ethics such as the bolts he's placed. He may have tried to justify placing them, but I've never heard him *deny* placing them.
In reply to Derek O:
Yet again the false innuendo...I know who posted that post.
I've climbed with him for years. He's a good mate and you'll see him in the books as having seconded Mark on some of his new routes (K.Thomas...look him up).
I was with him on the occasion he's talking about, as was another person from my climbing club. And I think I've been posting here long enough for people to know that *I'm* not a "Mark Sock Puppet".
> (In reply to k.thomas598)
>
> Hi Mark
>
> Hi Mark
Yet again the false innuendo...I know who posted that post.
I've climbed with him for years. He's a good mate and you'll see him in the books as having seconded Mark on some of his new routes (K.Thomas...look him up).
I was with him on the occasion he's talking about, as was another person from my climbing club. And I think I've been posting here long enough for people to know that *I'm* not a "Mark Sock Puppet".
In reply to Rob Naylor:
just look at the picture on the top of the article:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
you can see the damage from a mile off you may not be able to see it so clearly from below though.
just look at the picture on the top of the article:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
you can see the damage from a mile off you may not be able to see it so clearly from below though.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
You're right: I guess I dug straight into the article without looking closely at the top photo. That must have been taken from pretty near where Kevin and I stood, and again, I say categorically that the route DIDN'T look like that the week after Mark had done it.
> (In reply to Rob Naylor)
> just look at the picture on the top of the article:
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
> you can see the damage from a mile off.
> just look at the picture on the top of the article:
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
> you can see the damage from a mile off.
You're right: I guess I dug straight into the article without looking closely at the top photo. That must have been taken from pretty near where Kevin and I stood, and again, I say categorically that the route DIDN'T look like that the week after Mark had done it.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
an interesting development to the thread.
an interesting development to the thread.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
So you're basically providing proof that locals did it to discredit the Edwards. In that case it's an even worse situation than someone manufacturing routes, it's twisted people on a vendetta both in the UK and in Spain.
So you're basically providing proof that locals did it to discredit the Edwards. In that case it's an even worse situation than someone manufacturing routes, it's twisted people on a vendetta both in the UK and in Spain.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Sorry thought it was a just a bit suspicious that it was a new account without a proper name.
So the case thickens, some time between when you saw it and Shane visited it, someone abbed the wall and basically wrecked the place? hmm...
Sorry thought it was a just a bit suspicious that it was a new account without a proper name.
So the case thickens, some time between when you saw it and Shane visited it, someone abbed the wall and basically wrecked the place? hmm...
In reply to bentley's biceps:
I'm not providing proof of anything except that the wall did not look like that some days after Mark had done it.
When it was butchered or by whom I have no idea about.
I'm not providing proof of anything except that the wall did not look like that some days after Mark had done it.
When it was butchered or by whom I have no idea about.
In reply to Rob Naylor: "too went and had a look at FALW with Kevin, Mark and Rowland and others, a few days after Mark had climbed it."
Could I ask what date that was Rob?
Could I ask what date that was Rob?
In reply to Derek O:
No idea. I suspect, from things I've heard him say in the past, that his attitude is: "I've said my piece, that I didn't do it, once. Those who believe me will believe me, those who don't will never believe me no matter what I say or do. What's the point in saying it over and over again?"
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I've heard him express similar sentiments before.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Still the question is begged why hasnt Mark done more to defend himself?
>
> Still the question is begged why hasnt Mark done more to defend himself?
No idea. I suspect, from things I've heard him say in the past, that his attitude is: "I've said my piece, that I didn't do it, once. Those who believe me will believe me, those who don't will never believe me no matter what I say or do. What's the point in saying it over and over again?"
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I've heard him express similar sentiments before.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
***but then doesnt he have a history of back-dating first ascents??***
Just a thought
> some days after Mark had done it.
***but then doesnt he have a history of back-dating first ascents??***
Just a thought
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Whats's your stance then Rob, you believe the damage was done in the weeks after Mark did the first ascent before Shane visited the crag by some mystery person that either has it in for mark or just wants to climb his new routes even if that means making them much easier. TBH that sounds rather far fetched and my gut feeling is there is no smoke without fire and there is a lot of smoke about. However I wouldn't like to draw conclusions. I certainly think if ME claims any other new routes he's going to need hi res picutres showing him climbing the route in a natural state to avoid any future similar episosdes.
Whats's your stance then Rob, you believe the damage was done in the weeks after Mark did the first ascent before Shane visited the crag by some mystery person that either has it in for mark or just wants to climb his new routes even if that means making them much easier. TBH that sounds rather far fetched and my gut feeling is there is no smoke without fire and there is a lot of smoke about. However I wouldn't like to draw conclusions. I certainly think if ME claims any other new routes he's going to need hi res picutres showing him climbing the route in a natural state to avoid any future similar episosdes.
In reply to Derek O:
Is it too early to put forward the theory that Mark lead the route in good style, showed it to several friends and then went back two weeks later and trashed it? This utterly devious plan would enable him to make all his detractors look a bit silly and return him to the bosom of UKC!
<Puts on tinfoil hat and goes off to sit with the conspiracy nutters>
Is it too early to put forward the theory that Mark lead the route in good style, showed it to several friends and then went back two weeks later and trashed it? This utterly devious plan would enable him to make all his detractors look a bit silly and return him to the bosom of UKC!
<Puts on tinfoil hat and goes off to sit with the conspiracy nutters>
In reply to Derek O:
extremely pertinent point,
Rob, perhaps you have been used as a pawn in this whole sorry affair?
The evidence in this thread points overwhelmingly to one conclusion in my opinion.
> (In reply to Rob Naylor)
> [...]
>
> ***but then doesnt he have a history of back-dating first ascents??***
>
> Just a thought
> [...]
>
> ***but then doesnt he have a history of back-dating first ascents??***
>
> Just a thought
extremely pertinent point,
Rob, perhaps you have been used as a pawn in this whole sorry affair?
The evidence in this thread points overwhelmingly to one conclusion in my opinion.
In reply to Chris H:
I think it was Saturday 15th August 2009, but could be a weekend out either way without checking my calendar.
> (In reply to Rob Naylor) "too went and had a look at FALW with Kevin, Mark and Rowland and others, a few days after Mark had climbed it."
>
> Could I ask what date that was Rob?
>
> Could I ask what date that was Rob?
I think it was Saturday 15th August 2009, but could be a weekend out either way without checking my calendar.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
You say you saw the route after it was climbed and it was not chipped.
Mark Edwards says The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then..
Shane Ohly (19th July post) stated he visited on 12th Feb after seeing the route in Feb's Climb magazine.
So what you are saying is that it wasn't chipped after Mark Edwards climbed it, and he says he's been out of the country since. Therefore between you, you are stating it was damaged by someone else. This is also what Mark says.
Ergo, someone else is going around chipping his routes after the FAs.
> (In reply to bentley's biceps)
>
> I'm not providing proof of anything except that the wall did not look like that some days after Mark had done it.
>
> When it was butchered or by whom I have no idea about.
>
> I'm not providing proof of anything except that the wall did not look like that some days after Mark had done it.
>
> When it was butchered or by whom I have no idea about.
You say you saw the route after it was climbed and it was not chipped.
Mark Edwards says The route has been there since last summer, and I have been over here in Spain since then..
Shane Ohly (19th July post) stated he visited on 12th Feb after seeing the route in Feb's Climb magazine.
So what you are saying is that it wasn't chipped after Mark Edwards climbed it, and he says he's been out of the country since. Therefore between you, you are stating it was damaged by someone else. This is also what Mark says.
Ergo, someone else is going around chipping his routes after the FAs.
In reply to Rob Naylor: Thanks. Would be interesting to see what the date on the "first ascent" photo was.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I have no idea what to think now. Derek O threw in the swerve ball of claiming the route being done before Rob saw it then doing it using enhanced holds and pro but telling Rob it was a new route he had done. Perhaps he told Rob it was a new project and Rob Misunderstood.
I trust Rob to be telling the truth as he sees it, knowing him and don't think he has any axe to grind except fairness to all.
Claiming routes were done earlier is nothing new, I had to tell a guidebook editor about someone doing it, one of the top climbers of the time. I asked him not to correct the guide but ask the person concerned if he had made a mistake about dates.
I have no idea what to think now. Derek O threw in the swerve ball of claiming the route being done before Rob saw it then doing it using enhanced holds and pro but telling Rob it was a new route he had done. Perhaps he told Rob it was a new project and Rob Misunderstood.
I trust Rob to be telling the truth as he sees it, knowing him and don't think he has any axe to grind except fairness to all.
Claiming routes were done earlier is nothing new, I had to tell a guidebook editor about someone doing it, one of the top climbers of the time. I asked him not to correct the guide but ask the person concerned if he had made a mistake about dates.
In reply to Erik B:
How could I have been? If he was only claiming to have climbed the wall the week before I saw it? His girlfriend who held the ropes was there, there was a line of chalk-marks up the wall. He didn't know that I was going down that weekend...it was a last minute decision as I was in Devon on business so he'd have had to have done some impressive pre-planning to give the impression he'd climbed it and then subsequently actually climbed it, wreaking the destruction post my visit.
With regard to back-dated ascent claims, I really can't comment on them in general...but I've been present on two occasions when Kevin had to plead with Mark to "FFS get your act together and write up those routes we did last year...*I* want my name in the next guide even if you don't". Again, I'm not saying he isn't guilty of doing it....I don't know. I just know that on two occasions to my knowledge he's been so frustratingly late writing up FAs that his second at the time had to bollock him to do it.
> (In reply to Derek O)
> [...]
>
>
> extremely pertinent point,
>
> Rob, perhaps you have been used as a pawn in this whole sorry affair?
> [...]
>
>
> extremely pertinent point,
>
> Rob, perhaps you have been used as a pawn in this whole sorry affair?
How could I have been? If he was only claiming to have climbed the wall the week before I saw it? His girlfriend who held the ropes was there, there was a line of chalk-marks up the wall. He didn't know that I was going down that weekend...it was a last minute decision as I was in Devon on business so he'd have had to have done some impressive pre-planning to give the impression he'd climbed it and then subsequently actually climbed it, wreaking the destruction post my visit.
With regard to back-dated ascent claims, I really can't comment on them in general...but I've been present on two occasions when Kevin had to plead with Mark to "FFS get your act together and write up those routes we did last year...*I* want my name in the next guide even if you don't". Again, I'm not saying he isn't guilty of doing it....I don't know. I just know that on two occasions to my knowledge he's been so frustratingly late writing up FAs that his second at the time had to bollock him to do it.
In reply to sutty:
Aye I also trust Rob to say the truth as he sees it, I guess Rob must assume someone else did the damage to this route. Seems such a strange thing to do as there is no net gain, as the mystery chipper can't claim ascents as if they did they would be exposed.
Aye I also trust Rob to say the truth as he sees it, I guess Rob must assume someone else did the damage to this route. Seems such a strange thing to do as there is no net gain, as the mystery chipper can't claim ascents as if they did they would be exposed.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Thats pretty interesting, its hard to imagine him going to that level of scheming.
Your evidence suggests that someone else is guilty, which is possibly far worse than if it was Mark Edwards, because whether it was a deliberate attempt to defame him or not, they're not speaking up about it, so effectively doing just that.
Thats pretty interesting, its hard to imagine him going to that level of scheming.
Your evidence suggests that someone else is guilty, which is possibly far worse than if it was Mark Edwards, because whether it was a deliberate attempt to defame him or not, they're not speaking up about it, so effectively doing just that.
In reply to CurlyStevo: Compare this first ascent? photo http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
with the Nic Sellars one. Looks fairly similar in terms of "cleaning".
with the Nic Sellars one. Looks fairly similar in terms of "cleaning".
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Actually it wouldnt be that big a conspiracy to have told you he had led a route that he had actually only been practising on top rope, if he was secretly thinking 'I'll have this lead soon with a bit of 'cleaning'.
Though his girlfriend would have to be in on the whole thing too, what sort of person would happily led their partner delude themselves like that.
Actually it wouldnt be that big a conspiracy to have told you he had led a route that he had actually only been practising on top rope, if he was secretly thinking 'I'll have this lead soon with a bit of 'cleaning'.
Though his girlfriend would have to be in on the whole thing too, what sort of person would happily led their partner delude themselves like that.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I don't have a "stance". As Sutty says, I'm just stating things as I've seen and heard them.
I'm finding it hard to draw conclusions. Whenever I've met Mark, he's seemed fairly straight, he's admitted doing stuff against local ethics, and I've seen him do some impressively hard climbs in good style.
My mate Kevin is *definitely* totally straight. He's the person I enjoy climbing with most in the world...he's the safest belayer I've ever had and I climb 2 grades harder when he's holding my rope. He's also had me seconding stuff I never thought I could have done. He's got strong ethics and just doesn't lie or exaggerate. He's seconded Mark on a number of first ascents and I believe strongly that if he'd seen anything untoward from Mark he'd have been out of there like a shot.
OTOH, as you say, there's a lot of smoke out there. Whether a whole group of climbers "have it in" for Mark is a moot point. I know the slagging John Dunne's taken from some sections of the climbing "glitterati" but OTOH I can't see any of those people stooping to actually trashing rock just to discredit someone they don't like.
So I don't know what to think...I honestly don't!
> (In reply to Rob Naylor)
> Whats's your stance then Rob, you believe the damage was done in the weeks after Mark did the first ascent before Shane visited the crag by some mystery person that either has it in for mark or just wants to climb his new routes even if that means making them much easier. TBH that sounds rather far fetched and my gut feeling is there is no smoke without fire and there is a lot of smoke about.
> Whats's your stance then Rob, you believe the damage was done in the weeks after Mark did the first ascent before Shane visited the crag by some mystery person that either has it in for mark or just wants to climb his new routes even if that means making them much easier. TBH that sounds rather far fetched and my gut feeling is there is no smoke without fire and there is a lot of smoke about.
I don't have a "stance". As Sutty says, I'm just stating things as I've seen and heard them.
I'm finding it hard to draw conclusions. Whenever I've met Mark, he's seemed fairly straight, he's admitted doing stuff against local ethics, and I've seen him do some impressively hard climbs in good style.
My mate Kevin is *definitely* totally straight. He's the person I enjoy climbing with most in the world...he's the safest belayer I've ever had and I climb 2 grades harder when he's holding my rope. He's also had me seconding stuff I never thought I could have done. He's got strong ethics and just doesn't lie or exaggerate. He's seconded Mark on a number of first ascents and I believe strongly that if he'd seen anything untoward from Mark he'd have been out of there like a shot.
OTOH, as you say, there's a lot of smoke out there. Whether a whole group of climbers "have it in" for Mark is a moot point. I know the slagging John Dunne's taken from some sections of the climbing "glitterati" but OTOH I can't see any of those people stooping to actually trashing rock just to discredit someone they don't like.
So I don't know what to think...I honestly don't!
In reply to Chris H:
Yeah Rob are you sure, it definately looks like the same rock scars in that photo.
Yeah Rob are you sure, it definately looks like the same rock scars in that photo.
In reply to Derek O: The most likely scenario is that Medwards toproped the climb - found it too hard / necky for a lead - and "cleaned" it for the lead. Or led it and "cleaned" it for subsequent photo opps.
In reply to Derek O:
Except a perfectly respectable witness higher up the thread suggests that the route was led cleanly by him on the 29th August for photos with no evidence of manufactured holds.
The number of people who would have to be 'in on it' is rising, and is becoming, frankly, as implausible as the idea of someone so consumed by bitterness over a period of decades that they would take the trouble to butcher his routes post FA.
The choice between two equally bizarre scenarios. Even Occam's Razor is struggling somewhat.
Except a perfectly respectable witness higher up the thread suggests that the route was led cleanly by him on the 29th August for photos with no evidence of manufactured holds.
The number of people who would have to be 'in on it' is rising, and is becoming, frankly, as implausible as the idea of someone so consumed by bitterness over a period of decades that they would take the trouble to butcher his routes post FA.
The choice between two equally bizarre scenarios. Even Occam's Razor is struggling somewhat.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Oh, and with regard to my late entry here (I've had an email accusing me of being very late in posting this stuff), this is the first day for a couple of weeks that I've been able to keep my foot below my navel after an operation for more than a few minutes, so had only glanced at the thread before and made that post to Liz.
Going to have to sign off again for a while now as my cast's tight again an the foot's going purpleish, so have to get it high again.
Oh, and with regard to my late entry here (I've had an email accusing me of being very late in posting this stuff), this is the first day for a couple of weeks that I've been able to keep my foot below my navel after an operation for more than a few minutes, so had only glanced at the thread before and made that post to Liz.
Going to have to sign off again for a while now as my cast's tight again an the foot's going purpleish, so have to get it high again.
In reply to Derek O: 'what sort of person would happily let their partner delude themselves like that.' I assume the same sort of person that would post a simpering pretend question on UKC to promote her partner's routes.
I wonder whether there wasn't a 'misunderstanding', e.g. 'I've just done that route' meaning I've just about wired it, being misinterpreted as 'I've just led the FA'?
I wonder whether there wasn't a 'misunderstanding', e.g. 'I've just done that route' meaning I've just about wired it, being misinterpreted as 'I've just led the FA'?
In reply to MHutch:
Aye its pretty fascinating! Someone out there knows!
So he re-led it on 29th August, thats a couple of weeks after Rob had seen it, and about three weeks after FA.
The crucial thing is, is the damage there in the photo? I think it is! Cant be sure at that resolution though.
Aye its pretty fascinating! Someone out there knows!
So he re-led it on 29th August, thats a couple of weeks after Rob had seen it, and about three weeks after FA.
The crucial thing is, is the damage there in the photo? I think it is! Cant be sure at that resolution though.
In reply to MHutch: He didn`t actually mention the holds - see below.
"am just about to leave for Switzerland for two weeks, hence just a short reply to your mail, which you may forward to Jack Geldard.
On 29th of August last year, I went with Mark, his partner Andrea and Rowland to take photos of his ascent of the First and Last Wall. After watching his ascent, which he made in style, I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then.
It appears from the photos taken by Nic Sellers that someone has been on the route chipping and drilling those placements, which is a shame indeed.
Best regards
Egbert
"am just about to leave for Switzerland for two weeks, hence just a short reply to your mail, which you may forward to Jack Geldard.
On 29th of August last year, I went with Mark, his partner Andrea and Rowland to take photos of his ascent of the First and Last Wall. After watching his ascent, which he made in style, I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then.
It appears from the photos taken by Nic Sellers that someone has been on the route chipping and drilling those placements, which is a shame indeed.
Best regards
Egbert
In reply to eggburt1952:
this is vandalism pure and simple and no it's not a work in progress as suggested by some buffoon look at the pictures of Nic Sellars the scars are all there.
No argument from me about the vandalism but as the buffoon in question I was merely musing as to why so much had been made of what now seem to be quite discreetly modified cam slots whilst what is quite clearly a bloody great manufactured jug (apparently one of many) was passed over as heavy cleaning. Of course I can see cleaning in the FA photo, but what we now see is way beyonf that.
Of course, I'm currently pontificating from thousands of miles away based on the photos everyone can look at, but these don't look to me to be E8, E6 or even E2 holds. There must still be quite hard and bold sections in between or a climber of Shane's calibre, out of leading practice or not, wouldn't be backing off it.
Obviously, we don't have the whole story. While I'm as disgusted by this as you are, and as reluctant to believe in some phantom chipper following Mark Edwards round, something here still doesn't quite add up.
this is vandalism pure and simple and no it's not a work in progress as suggested by some buffoon look at the pictures of Nic Sellars the scars are all there.
No argument from me about the vandalism but as the buffoon in question I was merely musing as to why so much had been made of what now seem to be quite discreetly modified cam slots whilst what is quite clearly a bloody great manufactured jug (apparently one of many) was passed over as heavy cleaning. Of course I can see cleaning in the FA photo, but what we now see is way beyonf that.
Of course, I'm currently pontificating from thousands of miles away based on the photos everyone can look at, but these don't look to me to be E8, E6 or even E2 holds. There must still be quite hard and bold sections in between or a climber of Shane's calibre, out of leading practice or not, wouldn't be backing off it.
Obviously, we don't have the whole story. While I'm as disgusted by this as you are, and as reluctant to believe in some phantom chipper following Mark Edwards round, something here still doesn't quite add up.
In reply to Chris H:
yup the cleaning/chipping to the rock looks identical and I think you can see the hand hold which looks to be drilled out/manufactured in the first ascent photo also. Given the evidence here I personally think Robs statement can be disregarded he must just not have noticed the chipping/over cleaning, the first ascent photo shows the damage that eggburt photographed here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
> (In reply to CurlyStevo) Compare this first ascent? photo http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
> with the Nic Sellars one. Looks fairly similar in terms of "cleaning".
> with the Nic Sellars one. Looks fairly similar in terms of "cleaning".
yup the cleaning/chipping to the rock looks identical and I think you can see the hand hold which looks to be drilled out/manufactured in the first ascent photo also. Given the evidence here I personally think Robs statement can be disregarded he must just not have noticed the chipping/over cleaning, the first ascent photo shows the damage that eggburt photographed here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=29959
In reply to CurlyStevo: "Given the evidence here I personally think Robs statement can be disregarded he must just not have noticed the chipping/over cleaning"
....or it hadn`t yet been done
....or it hadn`t yet been done
In reply to Derek O:
Rather than trying to compare photos (always hard), I was going from Egbert's email:
"I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then."
This is a respectable guy. He's seen those slots up close on the 29th and nothing is amiss for him.
Rather than trying to compare photos (always hard), I was going from Egbert's email:
"I toproped the route and can confirm, that the cam placements, Mark had used, had no signs of drilling or chipping (actually they still looked a bit fragile, pretty shallow, with crystals that broke loose); I cannot recall the exact number of the placements, but I think there were not more than three pretty precarious small cam placements. After we did the photo shooting, Mark and Rowland left for Spain and have not been back to Cornwall since then."
This is a respectable guy. He's seen those slots up close on the 29th and nothing is amiss for him.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Rob's evidence doesnt necessarily have to be disregarded, he said that the date he visited was before the photo was taken. So it could have been damaged in between.
Rob's evidence doesnt necessarily have to be disregarded, he said that the date he visited was before the photo was taken. So it could have been damaged in between.
In reply to MHutch: He toproped the route but hasn`t said that the cams were still in - so he wouldn`t necc seen all the placements.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
look at the photo here see the triangular niche:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150684
I think you can see the manufactured hand jug:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
look at the cleaned triangular niche halway up the climb on the first ascent photo, I think you can see the manufactured handjug:
http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
look at the photo here see the triangular niche:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150684
I think you can see the manufactured hand jug:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
look at the cleaned triangular niche halway up the climb on the first ascent photo, I think you can see the manufactured handjug:
http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
In reply to Chris H:
We've moved away from manufactured cam placements to manufactured holds fairly seamlessly here, but they come as a package, for me at least. If the cam placements weren't obviously drilled at the time of the lead for photos, I'm more inclined to suspect that the holds weren't either. Like I say, hard to tell the difference between cleaning and all-out manufacturing from pics, even if a 'cleaned' area can be seen.
We've moved away from manufactured cam placements to manufactured holds fairly seamlessly here, but they come as a package, for me at least. If the cam placements weren't obviously drilled at the time of the lead for photos, I'm more inclined to suspect that the holds weren't either. Like I say, hard to tell the difference between cleaning and all-out manufacturing from pics, even if a 'cleaned' area can be seen.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I think you're seeing things you want to see mate. The angle is completely different and it's far too low res.
I think you're seeing things you want to see mate. The angle is completely different and it's far too low res.
In reply to MHutch:
OK, unless Egbert hasnt got a clue what the rock naturally looks like, thats seems pretty clear.
So we are left with the phantom chipper then! Does it have to be someone with a vendetta, could it not just have been someone trying to repeat the route but obviously going over the top with cleaning it?
OK, unless Egbert hasnt got a clue what the rock naturally looks like, thats seems pretty clear.
So we are left with the phantom chipper then! Does it have to be someone with a vendetta, could it not just have been someone trying to repeat the route but obviously going over the top with cleaning it?
In reply to Derek O:
Though it would be quite a big coincidence, and you would assume they would have been aware that Mark Edwards did the FA, and that without declaring their ascent he would get the blame...seems unlikely. Everything seems unlikely!
Though it would be quite a big coincidence, and you would assume they would have been aware that Mark Edwards did the FA, and that without declaring their ascent he would get the blame...seems unlikely. Everything seems unlikely!
In reply to Derek O: Unlikely as only MEdwards mates knew he had done the route.
In reply to Chris H:
Nic's report and pics show multiple, heavily improved slots - if it's that obvious to him a season later on an exposed sea-cliff, it seems to me at least it would be hard to miss entirely on a top-rope a couple of weeks after the claimed FA.
> (In reply to MHutch) He toproped the route but hasn`t said that the cams were still in - so he wouldn`t necc seen all the placements.
Nic's report and pics show multiple, heavily improved slots - if it's that obvious to him a season later on an exposed sea-cliff, it seems to me at least it would be hard to miss entirely on a top-rope a couple of weeks after the claimed FA.
In reply to Kid Spatula:
you can see most the features eggburt photographed close up as being heavily cleaned/chipped/maufacutered on the first ascent photo. Maybe they were further improved, maybe the cam slots were not there. We don't know all the facts but we do know some pretty extensive cleaning occured prior to the first ascent photo (as you can see it there), and that this cleaning matches many of the places of damage eggburt photographed at the weekend.
you can see most the features eggburt photographed close up as being heavily cleaned/chipped/maufacutered on the first ascent photo. Maybe they were further improved, maybe the cam slots were not there. We don't know all the facts but we do know some pretty extensive cleaning occured prior to the first ascent photo (as you can see it there), and that this cleaning matches many of the places of damage eggburt photographed at the weekend.
In reply to Derek O:
Sounds to me as in an impartial enquiry ought to be set up by the BMC to collect and assess the evidence.
Either way something is seriously wrong:
1) Drilling gearplacements and manufacturing holds
or
2) Someone (or more) person(s) unknown vandalising routes with the intention of discrediting someone.
Either way there has been a pattern of behaviour for many years, which is extremely worrying, partic if 2).
Sounds to me as in an impartial enquiry ought to be set up by the BMC to collect and assess the evidence.
Either way something is seriously wrong:
1) Drilling gearplacements and manufacturing holds
or
2) Someone (or more) person(s) unknown vandalising routes with the intention of discrediting someone.
Either way there has been a pattern of behaviour for many years, which is extremely worrying, partic if 2).
In reply to MHutch: "Nic's report and pics show multiple, heavily improved slots - if it's that obvious to him a season later on an exposed sea-cliff, it seems to me at least it would be hard to miss entirely on a top-rope a couple of weeks after the claimed FA."
That does seem strange.
That does seem strange.
In reply to Chris H:
Until the FA picture in the mags in Feb?
> (In reply to Derek O) Unlikely as only MEdwards mates knew he had done the route.
Until the FA picture in the mags in Feb?
In reply to MHutch:
I wonder if there are any witnesses who saw the wall between 29th August and whatever date in Feb it was published in the mags, that would be useful.
I wonder if there are any witnesses who saw the wall between 29th August and whatever date in Feb it was published in the mags, that would be useful.
In reply to jon:
That genuinely defies belief...the hold looks about as natural as Jordans chest.
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> This is my favourite: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
>
> This is my favourite: http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
That genuinely defies belief...the hold looks about as natural as Jordans chest.
In reply to Chris H: good call, you can see chalk on the manufactured hold in the triangle scar on the FA photo. Only a blind man could argue that the route doesnt have the same scarring on the FA photo as the recent photos by Eggburt
In reply to Erik B:
The photo on the Dutch website is not from the first ascent. The image has the EXIF data intact, and it shows that it was taken 29th August at 16:05.
So the timeline is something like this:
9th August 2009 : M Edwards does first ascent
15th August 2009 : R Naylor and K Thomas have a look from the top of the cliff. Rob says that the obvious damage was not done.
29th August 2009 : Mark, Andrea and Egbert D visit. This photo is taken:
http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
Egbert topropes the line and describes the pockets as fragile and shallow
12th February 2010 : Shane Ohly finds drilled slots and heavy cleaning.
July 2010 : Nic Sellers repeats the route, photos here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
UKC publishes article and bedlam ensures...
The photo on the Dutch website is not from the first ascent. The image has the EXIF data intact, and it shows that it was taken 29th August at 16:05.
So the timeline is something like this:
9th August 2009 : M Edwards does first ascent
15th August 2009 : R Naylor and K Thomas have a look from the top of the cliff. Rob says that the obvious damage was not done.
29th August 2009 : Mark, Andrea and Egbert D visit. This photo is taken:
http://www.nkbv.nl/summitclub/weblog/Andrealine2/post/2202.html
Egbert topropes the line and describes the pockets as fragile and shallow
12th February 2010 : Shane Ohly finds drilled slots and heavy cleaning.
July 2010 : Nic Sellers repeats the route, photos here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56420
UKC publishes article and bedlam ensures...
In reply to TimB: think about what you have just posted, the scarring clearly happened before 29th August, therefore Mark repeated the damaged route
In reply to TimB:
Are you a believer? This really has turned into a god thread!...............
> UKC publishes article and bedlam ensures...
Are you a believer? This really has turned into a god thread!...............
In reply to Erik B:
yeah and didn't report it - which seems highly unlikely given his reputation is already questionable in the area. Basically the photographic evidence that had emerged today has not proved much more. It shows what looks to be fairly heavy cleaning on marks ascent that was used to publisise the route, most of it definately in the same areas that eggburt shows the route currently has some chipping/drilling and over zealous cleaning. It's fair to assume since Mark didn't report this heavy cleaning and the route was not publisised it was down to him. It doesn't tell us Mark drilled the cam slots/jug, it's possible whoever did that further cleaned and chipped the route.
yeah and didn't report it - which seems highly unlikely given his reputation is already questionable in the area. Basically the photographic evidence that had emerged today has not proved much more. It shows what looks to be fairly heavy cleaning on marks ascent that was used to publisise the route, most of it definately in the same areas that eggburt shows the route currently has some chipping/drilling and over zealous cleaning. It's fair to assume since Mark didn't report this heavy cleaning and the route was not publisised it was down to him. It doesn't tell us Mark drilled the cam slots/jug, it's possible whoever did that further cleaned and chipped the route.
In reply to kevin stephens:
tipped off by Bill Birch, who was invoved in the early development of the place, mark did an E6 in Intake Quarry, Derbyshire - Truancy - (circa 1999) which was protected by ENPs. Its fallen down now, though had been superceded by a much better route of Gary Gibson's - Welcome to Poppy's - 6c+ and it never got much attention, even after it was a retrobolted 7a
> (In reply to aln)
> Do the Edwardses ever climb anywhere outside waet Cornwall? It seems they have isolated themselves from the rest of UK climbing for the last 20 years or so and hence have no apprecation of UK grades, ethics etc
> Do the Edwardses ever climb anywhere outside waet Cornwall? It seems they have isolated themselves from the rest of UK climbing for the last 20 years or so and hence have no apprecation of UK grades, ethics etc
tipped off by Bill Birch, who was invoved in the early development of the place, mark did an E6 in Intake Quarry, Derbyshire - Truancy - (circa 1999) which was protected by ENPs. Its fallen down now, though had been superceded by a much better route of Gary Gibson's - Welcome to Poppy's - 6c+ and it never got much attention, even after it was a retrobolted 7a
In reply to UKC News: fill in the slots and ask mark edwards to do it again.
In reply to nickcanute: Isn't the hardest route on the Ranoch Wall also an Edwards route? Baptism of Fire?
sorry!
August 9th 2009 ME claims first ascent - 15th August 2009 ME shows dudes his fab new route no evidence of rock scars or drilled slots - 29th August 2009 ME repeats route using cams in same place as slots are now, plus extensive identical rock scars from hold creation as clearly shown in Egbert Dozekal's photo and exactly the same as photos(mine) from July 25th 2010, ME fails to notice damage or enhanced placements fails even to mention the absolute trashing of his new route (only 20 days old) to Dozekal who is with him???????? - Feb 2010 ME reports route in Climber Mag no mention of it's changed condition this is the first time anyone other than ME and buddy dudes know about the route. - July 2010 NS and SO repeat route report damage. - July 2010 ME states to UKC;- " SAD TO HEAR THAT BUT IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE IN PENWITH".????????????any more questions.
August 9th 2009 ME claims first ascent - 15th August 2009 ME shows dudes his fab new route no evidence of rock scars or drilled slots - 29th August 2009 ME repeats route using cams in same place as slots are now, plus extensive identical rock scars from hold creation as clearly shown in Egbert Dozekal's photo and exactly the same as photos(mine) from July 25th 2010, ME fails to notice damage or enhanced placements fails even to mention the absolute trashing of his new route (only 20 days old) to Dozekal who is with him???????? - Feb 2010 ME reports route in Climber Mag no mention of it's changed condition this is the first time anyone other than ME and buddy dudes know about the route. - July 2010 NS and SO repeat route report damage. - July 2010 ME states to UKC;- " SAD TO HEAR THAT BUT IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE IN PENWITH".????????????any more questions.
In reply to eggburt1952:
You're missing out one crucial thing there Egg, 29th August - Egbert Dozekal topropes the route and says there are not any drilled cam slots.
But, in his photo you can DEFINITELY see at least some of the damage/cleaning.
You're missing out one crucial thing there Egg, 29th August - Egbert Dozekal topropes the route and says there are not any drilled cam slots.
But, in his photo you can DEFINITELY see at least some of the damage/cleaning.
In reply to Derek O:
Can you really? Whats wrong with my eyesight? Ive opened that photo from 29th August and to me there are no obvious rock scars visible at all - certainly not to the same extent as in the photo of Nic Sellars from the top of the article. The photo is just too low res. It looks like there may be some light patches but they look as much like chalk as pale rock, and matching their position to the other photo is very difficult.
PS I dont have as much interest in all this as some others obviously do, but am only posting this because it rankles with me when someone (several people actually) post something that appears so obviously wrong! I was expecting from the posts to see some obvious scars in the 29th August photo, but there simply aren't. Anyway, hope all this gets cleared up one way or the other as I dont want any more rock being damaged.
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> You're missing out one crucial thing there Egg, 29th August - Egbert Dozekal topropes the route and says there are not any drilled cam slots.
>
> But, in his photo you can DEFINITELY see at least some of the damage/cleaning.
>
> You're missing out one crucial thing there Egg, 29th August - Egbert Dozekal topropes the route and says there are not any drilled cam slots.
>
> But, in his photo you can DEFINITELY see at least some of the damage/cleaning.
Can you really? Whats wrong with my eyesight? Ive opened that photo from 29th August and to me there are no obvious rock scars visible at all - certainly not to the same extent as in the photo of Nic Sellars from the top of the article. The photo is just too low res. It looks like there may be some light patches but they look as much like chalk as pale rock, and matching their position to the other photo is very difficult.
PS I dont have as much interest in all this as some others obviously do, but am only posting this because it rankles with me when someone (several people actually) post something that appears so obviously wrong! I was expecting from the posts to see some obvious scars in the 29th August photo, but there simply aren't. Anyway, hope all this gets cleared up one way or the other as I dont want any more rock being damaged.
In reply to Si dH:
The manufactured hold in the triangular scar is visible in eggburt's photo, Nic Sellar's photo and the photo taken on the 29th Aug 2009. As are several other scars. It must be your eyes.
The manufactured hold in the triangular scar is visible in eggburt's photo, Nic Sellar's photo and the photo taken on the 29th Aug 2009. As are several other scars. It must be your eyes.
In reply to Kid Spatula:
It really is. OK you can't tell in the Mark Edwards photo how good the hold is, but its in exactly the same place and well chalked.
It really is. OK you can't tell in the Mark Edwards photo how good the hold is, but its in exactly the same place and well chalked.
In reply to Si dH:
To be honest I dont care that much, it doesnt make me angry, I have never even climbed in Cornwall and possibly never will, but it is quite an interesting mystery! And anything that gets people angry is interesting anway!
> PS I dont have as much interest in all this as some others obviously do,
To be honest I dont care that much, it doesnt make me angry, I have never even climbed in Cornwall and possibly never will, but it is quite an interesting mystery! And anything that gets people angry is interesting anway!
In reply to Kthomas598, Rob Naylor, Egbert Dozekal and Mark Glaister
'The placement of the drilled gear (by the Edwardses) has never been hidden or concealed' (Mark Glaister UKC)
'I've found (Mark Edwards) to be open about things that he *has* done against prevailing ethics such as the bolts he's placed. He may have tried to justify placing them, but I've never heard him *deny* placing them.' (Rob Naylor)
This sorry tale of First and Last Wall looks as if it needs Wikileaks or the Beeb's new Sherlock to resolve it, especially with counter claims and character references now rocking up, albeit a touch late.
There is some previous history regarding such evidence, however. I do not cast aspersions on Kevin Thomas, Rob Naylor and Egbert Dozekal. But an early incident in the long and sorry trail of the 'Cornish Controversies' has some parallels. It concerned allegations of chipping on a Mark Edwards' route, Demolition, at Sennen. One climber claimed to have examined Demolition soon after its first ascent by Edwards and stated that there was no sign of chipping of any kind, thus exonerating Edwards of any taint of culpability.
I reported this, unequivocally, in the historical section of the 1991 West Penwith Climbers' Club guide.Contrary to accusations of my 'bias' and 'lies' in countless green ink letters (see Jon Cox above) and in a huge collection of rambling emails accusing me of everything under the sun bar the Kennedy assassinations, I was rigorous in the Guide about reporting information rather than anecdote - which is why I reported clearly the Demolition vindication of Edwards.
Some years later, however, the climber concerned allegedly confessed to a mutual acquaintance that he had not examined the route, but had made his false claim because 'he was hoping to get a job with the Edwardses'. The claim of exoneration was, quite properly, then removed, without comment, from the 2000 edition of the CC Guide because of this fresh evidence. A lot of fog was still left hanging around, however.
A similar situation concerning Red Rose emerged with similar, though not emphatic, doubts about the credibility of a 'witness' who claimed there was no evidence of chipping on the route after Mark Edwards's first ascent. That one had to be left hanging in even thicker fog.
I stress again that I'm not inferring anything here regarding Messrs Thomas, Naylor and Dozekal -honourable men every one, I'm sure. But there is always smoke and mirrors - and fog - swirling around the Edwardses.
And none more so regarding the claimed 'open and honest' position of Mark and Rowland Edwards over their 1980s drilling of fixed gear in West Cornwall, as first quoted by Mark Glaister at the start of this thread,
'The placement of the drilled gear (by the Edwardses) has never been hidden or concealed' (Glaister)
and repeated, in essence, by Rob Naylor:
This is naïve and is seriously misleading, as is UKC's other shaky assertion in the intro article to this thread that:
'Ethics (on bolting) were in flux in the (nineteen) eighties as styles developed and grades were pushed'
UKC's credibility takes a bit of a nose dive here. Ethics - and consensus - for sea cliff areas such as Cornwall and Pembroke were crystal clear during the 1980s. Drilling was not the game on sea cliffs. Sure, there were occasional lapses and provocative incidents throughout the UK at the time but nobody was serial bolting Pembroke in the 1980s, were they? The Edwardses went entirely their own way in Cornwall, not because they were some kind of frontline pioneers/mavericks/ cutting edge heroes, but because they were promoting profiles above capabilities away from the gaze of the climbing world nationally. They had to be 'open' about obvious bolts but were certainly not transparent about many other drilling activities.
While researching the Climbers' Club guidebooks of the early 1990s, I came across examples of 'hidden or concealed' and unreported bolt belay sleeves on Edwards' routes covered over in places with stones or with thick moss piled on top. Bolts and drilled pegs were often described as traditional 'peg placements' in new route reports by the Edwardses. Other claims stated that 'pegs' were later replaced with bolts to 'assist' other climbers. Responsibility for some bolts were denied by the Edwardses and then glibly explained as having been 'placed' by the Edwardses employees! There was muddying of the water on a major scale culminating in the ludicrous retrospective claim that the 'convenience' lower-off bolt on Isis at Pendower Cove had suddenly morphed into an 'environmental protection bolt' several years after it was placed purely for lowering off. Cribba Head granite was bolted for pro and for top rope practice without clear acknowledgement of who had done so.The number of twists and turns over bolts and drilled pegs made your head spin.
All this detail drills me into boredom, frankly. But no way should we let go of transparency and accuracy in dealing with these matters, or we undermine integrity - and not just in the narrow world of climbing.
What this thread needs perhaps is a substantive change of direction. Perhaps the Edwardses - or their associates - should open a new thread on which they can at last have the courage to state openly which 'local climber' has been allegedly trashing their routes for the past 20 or so years. They can even offer a list of potential culprits if they want to. Us 'locals' will consider it all with due care and attention and will get the firelighters, faggots and stakes all set up.
Des Hannigan
In reply to eggburt1952:
Appart from the photo with the hand that shows possible hold creation/over-cleaning, the rest of the pics dont look like anything worse than heavy cleaning of some pretty crumbly granite, which isnt in the same league as the full blown "manufactured route" allegations above.
Appart from the photo with the hand that shows possible hold creation/over-cleaning, the rest of the pics dont look like anything worse than heavy cleaning of some pretty crumbly granite, which isnt in the same league as the full blown "manufactured route" allegations above.
In reply to Andy Donson:
Possible? This one? - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
"Just a little heavy on the brush, there dad": http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150674
What do you use to clean routes?
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> Appart from the photo with the hand that shows possible hold creation/over-cleaning,
> Appart from the photo with the hand that shows possible hold creation/over-cleaning,
Possible? This one? - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150680
> the rest of the pics dont look like anything worse than heavy cleaning of some pretty crumbly granite, which isnt in the same league as the full blown "manufactured route" allegations above.
"Just a little heavy on the brush, there dad": http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150674
What do you use to clean routes?
If you bothered to read my earlier post you would be aware that i mentioned 4 or five other holds that had been chopped out of blank granite with heavy tools, you say crumbly granite as though you have been there? I live here and am very familiar with the types of granite found round the cliffs, this is very gritty but not easily removed in such large sections, apart from the initial crack every hold on this route is manufactured, as for your comment about where are the pictures of the slots in my photo album, they are in Nic sellars' original article i do have photos of them but saw no point in repetion. As for Egbert Dozekals' account I know Egbert very well and he is an honourable person however i'm sure that whilst top roping a steep route that is a couple of grades above his batting average he would'nt have been paying too much attention to the slots and not being a new route activist in this area wouldn't really know what is an acceptable level of cleaning.I feel sorry for him as I feel he has been used as a stooge by Mark Edwards in this----- and if Mark Edwards is reading this?? MARK you should be ashamed of yourself not just for your acts of vandalism but that you would use a decent guy like Egbert who has been a good friend and supporter of yours in this way, he dosn't deserve it.
OPEN INVITATION TO MARK EDWARDS
Come on Mark lets have this debate with the people concerned and where it belongs HERE IN PUBLIC where there can be no hiding for anyone. I have a few questions I would like answers to - ie;- why did't you report your route as being trashed on the 29th of August when Egbert took the photo which clearly resolution or not shows exactly the same damage as is there today and what were you and your father doing they day after Dickie Swinden and i did "Cool Diamonds". I'm sure others have questions too so here is your chance to clear the EDWARDS LEGACY out in the open. If you are Innocent and we are all jelous tw*ts down here now is your chance to prove it. Please make me look stupid
egg
OPEN INVITATION TO MARK EDWARDS
Come on Mark lets have this debate with the people concerned and where it belongs HERE IN PUBLIC where there can be no hiding for anyone. I have a few questions I would like answers to - ie;- why did't you report your route as being trashed on the 29th of August when Egbert took the photo which clearly resolution or not shows exactly the same damage as is there today and what were you and your father doing they day after Dickie Swinden and i did "Cool Diamonds". I'm sure others have questions too so here is your chance to clear the EDWARDS LEGACY out in the open. If you are Innocent and we are all jelous tw*ts down here now is your chance to prove it. Please make me look stupid
egg
In reply to HanniganD:
Des
Please do not take my comments on the 'open and honest' approach of the Edwardses re drilled gear as a way of trying to muddy the waters as to the goings on on in West Penwith during the 80's and 90's - this was not my intention. I was basically referring to the published information available and from my own and others experiences where it was quite easy to gain route information at the Edwardses cafe, which (as far as I can recall) stated where pegs and threads were in place and (again as I recall) Rowland was quite open about the drilled gear. However I fully take on board your concern that other actions (less transparent) have and are still are occuring and that they must stop.
Mark Glaister
Des
Please do not take my comments on the 'open and honest' approach of the Edwardses re drilled gear as a way of trying to muddy the waters as to the goings on on in West Penwith during the 80's and 90's - this was not my intention. I was basically referring to the published information available and from my own and others experiences where it was quite easy to gain route information at the Edwardses cafe, which (as far as I can recall) stated where pegs and threads were in place and (again as I recall) Rowland was quite open about the drilled gear. However I fully take on board your concern that other actions (less transparent) have and are still are occuring and that they must stop.
Mark Glaister
In reply to HanniganD:
Des, I'll echo what Mark Glaister said above. In my posts I've been at pains to point out that I was only speaking of those occasions/ situations that I actually knew about, and not implying anything about situations that I had no personal knowledge of.
That's why, as I said in one post above: "I don't know what to think...I really don't".
I'm not usually such a crap judge of character as I must have been with regard to Mark Edwards if the accusations are true...but then again I'm not infallible. K.Thomas knows him much better than I do, and I've always trusted *his* judgement, too. He suffers fools, liars and people "up their own arses" much less tolerantly than I do.
So I repeat, I really don't know what to think about all this.
Des, I'll echo what Mark Glaister said above. In my posts I've been at pains to point out that I was only speaking of those occasions/ situations that I actually knew about, and not implying anything about situations that I had no personal knowledge of.
That's why, as I said in one post above: "I don't know what to think...I really don't".
I'm not usually such a crap judge of character as I must have been with regard to Mark Edwards if the accusations are true...but then again I'm not infallible. K.Thomas knows him much better than I do, and I've always trusted *his* judgement, too. He suffers fools, liars and people "up their own arses" much less tolerantly than I do.
So I repeat, I really don't know what to think about all this.
In reply to Mark Glaister and Rob Naylor:
Points taken on all counts, gentlemen.
I was simply putting down a marker against any unintentional misrepresentation of the history of Cornish climbing.
Points taken on all counts, gentlemen.
I was simply putting down a marker against any unintentional misrepresentation of the history of Cornish climbing.
In reply to HanniganD:
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify those points Des and apologies if I appeared to be trying to stir up any confusion at the initiation of the debate /news item. This was not my intention, I was briefly trying to set out (in a balanced and non-ranting way) the basics of the drilled gear/chipping fiasco to readers - many of whom will have had none or very little knowledge of what has and is still going on in West Penwith. It has been very interesting to read the opinions, eye witness accounts and historical anecdotes and I am sure that for those involved closely with the debate and the many thousands of interested browsers it has been extremely informative and will strengthen the case against further damage to the rock in this very special part of the traditional climbing world.
Mark Glaister
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify those points Des and apologies if I appeared to be trying to stir up any confusion at the initiation of the debate /news item. This was not my intention, I was briefly trying to set out (in a balanced and non-ranting way) the basics of the drilled gear/chipping fiasco to readers - many of whom will have had none or very little knowledge of what has and is still going on in West Penwith. It has been very interesting to read the opinions, eye witness accounts and historical anecdotes and I am sure that for those involved closely with the debate and the many thousands of interested browsers it has been extremely informative and will strengthen the case against further damage to the rock in this very special part of the traditional climbing world.
Mark Glaister
In reply to UKC News:
Although I don't have much to add I thought I'd say that this thread, and the whole issue, is absolutley fascinating- I have no idea what to think now.
I'd also like to say that it leaves everyone with a lot of credit the way the various strands of evidence have been presented, and the fact that ithasn't degenerated into a childish slanging match (as many internet forums are prone to).
Please can someone just get to the bottom of this now? I want to know how it ends.
Although I don't have much to add I thought I'd say that this thread, and the whole issue, is absolutley fascinating- I have no idea what to think now.
I'd also like to say that it leaves everyone with a lot of credit the way the various strands of evidence have been presented, and the fact that ithasn't degenerated into a childish slanging match (as many internet forums are prone to).
Please can someone just get to the bottom of this now? I want to know how it ends.
In reply to Robo:
Really Robo? You honestly have no idea?!
See if this helps (with apologies to Douglas Adams):-
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
>
> Although I don't have much to add I thought I'd say that this thread, and the whole issue, is absolutley fascinating- I have no idea what to think now.
> Although I don't have much to add I thought I'd say that this thread, and the whole issue, is absolutley fascinating- I have no idea what to think now.
Really Robo? You honestly have no idea?!
See if this helps (with apologies to Douglas Adams):-
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
In reply to Neil Foster:
Unless it's an Argentinian Racing Pigeon
> "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
Unless it's an Argentinian Racing Pigeon
In reply to Neil Foster:
Was that Adams? For some reason I was convinced it was Groucho Marx.
> (In reply to Robo)
> [...]
>
>(with apologies to Douglas Adams):-> [...]
>
>
> "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
> "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
Was that Adams? For some reason I was convinced it was Groucho Marx.
In reply to Neil Foster:
To quote a US Senator.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British government and the Libyan government."
> "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
To quote a US Senator.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British government and the Libyan government."
In reply to ericoides: Interesting,thanks for that.
In reply to ericoides:
Loving the picture the wiki folk have thoughtfully provided.
Oh, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that Mark is the vandal responsible.
Loving the picture the wiki folk have thoughtfully provided.
Oh, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that Mark is the vandal responsible.
In reply to JJL:
Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
> (In reply to ericoides)
>
> [...]
>
> Loving the picture the wiki folk have thoughtfully provided.
>
> [...]
>
> Loving the picture the wiki folk have thoughtfully provided.
Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
In reply to eggburt1952:
> If you bothered to read my earlier post you would be aware that i mentioned 4 or five other holds that had been chopped out of blank granite with heavy tools, you say crumbly granite as though you have been there? I live here and am very familiar with the types of granite found round the cliffs
Yes, Ive have been to most of the West Penwith granite cliffs. Ive also spent alot of time on granite from good to bad here in Colorado. The second picture you refered to, and all of the others you posted, apart from the hand shot, looked alot like the features you see on less than perfect granite after prizing away the crumbles. quack
In reply to davidbeynon:
Nice touch, whoever did it.
> (In reply to JJL)
> [...]
>
> Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
> [...]
>
> Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
Nice touch, whoever did it.
In reply to davidbeynon:
Especially as the picture is actually a drake...
> (In reply to JJL)
> [...]
>
> Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
> [...]
>
> Surely the picture caption should read "An alleged duck".
Especially as the picture is actually a drake...
In reply to UKC News: Interestigly, the alleged duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test is in fact a drake! (Allegedly.)
In reply to JJL: Youbeat me to it!
In reply to Neil Foster:
http://worldoffancydress.com/images/duck%203-8.JPG
> "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"
Not alwayshttp://worldoffancydress.com/images/duck%203-8.JPG
In reply to chrishamper:
Is that... no, it couldn't be... could it... Mark?
> (In reply to Neil Foster)
>
> [...]
> Not always
> http://worldoffancydress.com/images/duck%203-8.JPG
>
> [...]
> Not always
> http://worldoffancydress.com/images/duck%203-8.JPG
Is that... no, it couldn't be... could it... Mark?
In reply to colin struthers:
You’ve lost the point and don’t understand what he’s accused of.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=17341
These are not unstable glued on holds... these are just badly glue on holds to lower the grade of the climb in order for Medwards to be able to climb it. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
Cleaning with a Drill! Most people clean with a nylon brush, because a wire brush would be considered too aggressive altering the rock. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
This reminds me of a joke: Little boy walks into an art studio, where a sculptor had just finished a sculpture of a beautiful woman. Little boy looks at all the chippings on the floor and says, “That’s amazing how did you know the woman was inside the rock?”
Personally I only want it one way, NO VANDALISM on our crags!
> In any event, it seems some people commenting on these photos want to have it both ways - on the one hand slagging the Edwards if they glue unstable holds back on and on the other slating them if they clean them off.
You’ve lost the point and don’t understand what he’s accused of.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=17341
These are not unstable glued on holds... these are just badly glue on holds to lower the grade of the climb in order for Medwards to be able to climb it. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
Cleaning with a Drill! Most people clean with a nylon brush, because a wire brush would be considered too aggressive altering the rock. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
This reminds me of a joke: Little boy walks into an art studio, where a sculptor had just finished a sculpture of a beautiful woman. Little boy looks at all the chippings on the floor and says, “That’s amazing how did you know the woman was inside the rock?”
Personally I only want it one way, NO VANDALISM on our crags!
In reply to jon:
So it would seem that Medward has been Donald Ducked by UKC.....
So it would seem that Medward has been Donald Ducked by UKC.....
In reply to liz j: He's certainly ducking these particular issues. M
In reply to browndog33: Eider thought Mr Edwards would have replied to this thread by now. Perhaps he's consulting with solicitors, which will land him with a hefty bill. In fact, it could cost a ruddy fortune. Seems to be a web of intrigue around this whole issue.
In reply to UKC News:
Looks like a nice challenging climb now that the choss and snappiness has been cleadered off it.
Looks like a nice challenging climb now that the choss and snappiness has been cleadered off it.
In reply to whispering nic:
Cleadered? Does that mean chipped?
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Looks like a nice challenging climb now that the choss and snappiness has been cleadered off it.
>
> Looks like a nice challenging climb now that the choss and snappiness has been cleadered off it.
Cleadered? Does that mean chipped?
In reply to UKC News: obviously the guy is quackers
In reply to Rich Mayfield:
Show some sympathy, Rich. The man suffers emotional turmoil every time he clips a bolt (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=414228). Imagine what the poor chap went through to create that route.
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=17341
>
> These are not unstable glued on holds... these are just badly glue on holds to lower the grade of the climb in order for Medwards to be able to climb it. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
>
> Cleaning with a Drill! Most people clean with a nylon brush, because a wire brush would be considered too aggressive altering the rock. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
>
> Personally I only want it one way, NO VANDALISM on our crags!
>
> These are not unstable glued on holds... these are just badly glue on holds to lower the grade of the climb in order for Medwards to be able to climb it. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
>
> Cleaning with a Drill! Most people clean with a nylon brush, because a wire brush would be considered too aggressive altering the rock. Not really what the vast majority of climbers want. Robbing the potential line from a future generation!
>
> Personally I only want it one way, NO VANDALISM on our crags!
Show some sympathy, Rich. The man suffers emotional turmoil every time he clips a bolt (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=414228). Imagine what the poor chap went through to create that route.
In reply to edwardwoodward:
wow he's pretty vocal on that thread!! is he on holiday or just flown south?
> (In reply to Rich Mayfield)
> [...]
>
> Show some sympathy, Rich. The man suffers emotional turmoil every time he clips a bolt (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=414228). Imagine what the poor chap went through to create that route.
> [...]
>
> Show some sympathy, Rich. The man suffers emotional turmoil every time he clips a bolt (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=414228). Imagine what the poor chap went through to create that route.
wow he's pretty vocal on that thread!! is he on holiday or just flown south?
In reply to eggburt1952:
mmmmmmmmm...maybe that thread could go down as the all time greatest Uber Troll of UKC!!
E
> (In reply to edwardwoodward)
> [...]
>
> wow he's pretty vocal on that thread!! is he on holiday or just flown south?
> [...]
>
> wow he's pretty vocal on that thread!! is he on holiday or just flown south?
mmmmmmmmm...maybe that thread could go down as the all time greatest Uber Troll of UKC!!
E
In reply to Enty:
So it would seem that the cartoon "Characterless" Donald Dukced for his Mickey Mouse antics became Grumpy because he didn't get the adulation he thought he deserved and now resides under a bridge in his new guise as a ridiculous troll.
So it would seem that the cartoon "Characterless" Donald Dukced for his Mickey Mouse antics became Grumpy because he didn't get the adulation he thought he deserved and now resides under a bridge in his new guise as a ridiculous troll.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Yes - they all go "quack" as eggburt has so eloquently put it.
I'm with "Quack" too.
Yes - they all go "quack" as eggburt has so eloquently put it.
I'm with "Quack" too.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...