Loading Notifications...

NEWS: Cornish Controversy - Drilled Cam Slots

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 09 Jul 2010
[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

 Derek O 09 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Is he an honourable man then this Mark Edwards dude?
 candicegallab 09 Jul 2010
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.
 Jonny2vests 09 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I wonder if any of Mark's witnesses might like to offer comment.
 Monk 09 Jul 2010
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.
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.

 Jonny2vests 09 Jul 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
> (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:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> 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.
Theclimbinglab 09 Jul 2010
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
 King prawn 09 Jul 2010
In reply to Theclimbinglab:
> 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

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.
Theclimbinglab 09 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:

That would be awful
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...
 Skyfall 09 Jul 2010
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?
 Micky J 09 Jul 2010
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
Rat know-all 09 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:
This is indeed low brow behaviour.
These retards need a slap.

 royal 09 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Jesus christ, I'm speechless. What do people think when they do these things?
 Skyfall 09 Jul 2010
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...
 Wee Davie 10 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> 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
 JKinsella 10 Jul 2010
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.
jimpy 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Wee Davie:#
spot of cement?
 Wee Davie 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Sargey 10 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:

This whole thing is depressing, both the rock damage and the witch hunt.
Derbyshire Ben 10 Jul 2010
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.
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!
 sutty 10 Jul 2010
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.
1
In reply to dunkymonkey17:
> (In reply to JonC) cool...sounds pretty wank to me!
>
> it would be interesting to hear from the witnesses to prove him innocent

didn't realise UKC was a court of law!
 thepeaks 10 Jul 2010
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
In reply to thepeaks:
> (In reply to sutty) Why should he? He is a registered user.

Who is making extremely serious accusations.

Mick

 ChrisJD 10 Jul 2010
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?

Animal 10 Jul 2010
In reply to King prawn:

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...!
 crankey 10 Jul 2010
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: i was going to send mr edwards an email but suprise suprise hes not acepting any emails. coward.
 Chris Harris 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (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

I'll probably see Nigel this evening, I'll ask him about this.



 steve456 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Derek O 10 Jul 2010
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.
 thepeaks 10 Jul 2010
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?
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
 crankey 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Enty 10 Jul 2010
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
> 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://ukc2.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


 Brian H 10 Jul 2010
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
 jon 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to DaisyClimbing)
> [...]
> http://ukc2.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?

 sutty 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Erik B 10 Jul 2010
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

Tam Stone 10 Jul 2010
In reply to sutty: Are you pally with the Edwards'?
 sutty 10 Jul 2010
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?
Tam Stone 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Ackbar 10 Jul 2010
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....
 thepeaks 10 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to Chris Harris:

> 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

 Chris Harris 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ward: He mentions Shagger from time to time. The others are names I'm not familiar with.
 Al Evans 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Harris: Try Dott instead of Boggie?
 Chris Shorter 10 Jul 2010
In reply to 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.......

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:
> (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
 Charlie_Zero 10 Jul 2010
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?
 The Newt 10 Jul 2010
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
 Mike Raine 10 Jul 2010
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

 sutty 10 Jul 2010
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&name=sutty&topic=&b...

Organised this for several years, among other meets;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=364322

Enough detail?
 Paul B 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Michael Ryan 10 Jul 2010
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
 thepeaks 10 Jul 2010
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:
> 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:
> 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.

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
 Charlie_Zero 10 Jul 2010
In reply to sutty:

I concede the point graciously - you are not anonymous.




murdster 10 Jul 2010
In reply to DaisyClimbing:


Hi Mark.
Why do you post under this name as well as your own?
 bobert 10 Jul 2010
In reply to murdster:
> (In reply to DaisyClimbing)
>
>
> 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??
 eonuk 10 Jul 2010
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?
In reply to Alan_2468:
> (In reply to sutty)
>
> 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

> 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
murdster 10 Jul 2010
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!


 Steve Parker 10 Jul 2010
In reply to Erik B:
> (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.
climbright 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Steve Parker 10 Jul 2010
In reply to murdster:
> (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!

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.

 DaisyClimbing 10 Jul 2010
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.
 thepeaks 10 Jul 2010
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?
 Kevin Duffy 10 Jul 2010
In reply to DaisyClimbing:
> (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.

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.

murdster 10 Jul 2010
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.
 Dave Todd 10 Jul 2010
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?
 Steve Parker 11 Jul 2010
In reply to Dave Todd:
> (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...

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.

 McBirdy 11 Jul 2010
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-goes-the-theory/

Ben
 Steve Parker 11 Jul 2010
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...
In reply to Steve Parker: And Mark's FB page says he is in a relationship with someone called Andrea. The plot thickens.
 Chris Harris 11 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Shorter:
> (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:
> (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.
 Steve Parker 11 Jul 2010
In reply to higherclimbingwales:

> 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:
> (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
The real Steve Parker 11 Jul 2010
In reply to Steve Parker:

The other problem with asking for names is this one...
 eggburt1952 11 Jul 2010
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
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
> 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
 eggburt1952 11 Jul 2010
egg = graham everitt are the 14,00 any wiser?
 Chris Shorter 11 Jul 2010
In reply to eggburt1952:
> 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.
 merlijnmeens 11 Jul 2010
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
 jon 11 Jul 2010
In reply to eggburt1952:

Absolutely brilliant photo of you and Tom Leppert in the UKC gallery, Egg!
 ChrisJD 11 Jul 2010
In reply to merlijnmeens:

So we just need to high resolution image to see what gear was in place......
In reply to eggburt1952:

> 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

 Ian Parsons 11 Jul 2010
In reply to eggburt1952:
> 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.
 Michael Ryan 11 Jul 2010
 Wonrek 11 Jul 2010
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
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
 Wonrek 11 Jul 2010
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 ;o)

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
davedyer 11 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News: is this really what climbing is about? argueing on the internet?
 Jamie B 11 Jul 2010
In reply to davedyer:

> 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 Clears:

i though my cake was.... quite good...

<sob>

;-)

gregor
 Steve Parker 11 Jul 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

> 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
 Colin Moody 11 Jul 2010
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_Arrochar.html
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!

 eggburt1952 12 Jul 2010
this is very typical are we going to get the first ascentionists right in the new cornwall guide?

egg
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2010
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
 Ian McNeill 12 Jul 2010
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/
 Chris the Tall 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Ian McNeill:
Any idea who that guy is and what his story is - quite a sprayfest he has going on there !
 Monk 12 Jul 2010
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...
 Will Hunt 12 Jul 2010
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.
 jon 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (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...

Now, he is completely barking... a HUGE chip on his shoulder.

 Will Hunt 12 Jul 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
>
>a HUGE chip


How deliciously appropriate.
In reply to Will Hunt: You don't look like you find chips delicious, Will.
 jon 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:

Er, yes - I hadn't noticed!
roger27 12 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:The big question remains; who and where are the seven witnesses? Roger Mitchell (Local Activist)
 andyr 12 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I wonder how mthomas15 did Yankee Doodle in 2006.

jcm
 Derek O 12 Jul 2010
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?
 Tom Last 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:
> (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.
>


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.
 Tom Last 12 Jul 2010
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?
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.
 Tom Last 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Papillon:

Cool ok, will re-read.
 Jonny2vests 12 Jul 2010
In reply to eggburt1952:
> 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.

 Jamie B 12 Jul 2010
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.
 jon 12 Jul 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> 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:
> (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

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


 cyberdog 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Derek O:
> (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.

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.
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 12 Jul 2010
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
 Jonny2vests 12 Jul 2010
In reply to jon:
> (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.

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.

 @ndyM@rsh@ll 12 Jul 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: Get some glasses.
In reply to Neil Foster:
> ... 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:

> 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:

> 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!!
 Jonny2vests 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (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
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. 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
murdster 12 Jul 2010
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.
 Tyler 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

> 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.
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 12 Jul 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> (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

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

 sutty 12 Jul 2010
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.
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
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
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
> (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.

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:
> 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
 gethin_allen 13 Jul 2010
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.
H.Swainsworth 13 Jul 2010
In reply to gethin_allen:


> 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.

 royal 13 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Dave Macleod doesn't use protection, the mountain does.
 eggburt1952 13 Jul 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> 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
 eggburt1952 13 Jul 2010

> 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
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


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
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.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
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?
 eggburt1952 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (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

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
 gingerwolf 13 Jul 2010
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
In reply to TomBond:

I know you are trying to be conciliatory here, but I think this spectacularly misses the point.
 Monk 13 Jul 2010
In reply to TomBond:
> (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

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.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
In reply to TomBond:
> 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.

 gingerwolf 13 Jul 2010
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
Colm_Shannon 13 Jul 2010
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
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to TomBond)
> [...]
>
> 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.
 royal 13 Jul 2010
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.
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.
 sutty 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Big Steve 13 Jul 2010
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
 jonny taylor 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Tyler 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> 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.
 Lumbering Oaf 13 Jul 2010
In reply to royal:

I couldn't agree more with that sentiment - here here!
In reply to Tyler:

> 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.
 jkarran 13 Jul 2010
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.

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
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
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.
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.

 old skool 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
In reply to eggburt1952:
> (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 await the next news report with interest.

 jkarran 13 Jul 2010
In reply to old skool:

> (In reply to jkarran)
> 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
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
In reply to jkarran:
> (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.

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.

 Tyler 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> 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.
 jkarran 13 Jul 2010
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
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.
 SteveX 13 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to sjc:
> 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
 Tom Last 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (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:

> 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.
 Tom Last 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Southern Man:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]


>
> Not splitting heirs,



Splitting hairs
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
In reply to sjc:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> 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.

 SteveX 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to sjc)
> [...]
>
> 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.
 Will Hunt 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Will Hunt 13 Jul 2010
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
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Southern Man:
> (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?
>

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.

 Al Evans 13 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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

That's completel rubbish jcm!
In reply to Al Evans:

> 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




 Derek O 13 Jul 2010
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.
 royal 13 Jul 2010
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.
 chris_j_s 13 Jul 2010
In reply to royal:
> 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...
 Jamie B 13 Jul 2010
In reply to chris_j_s:

> 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.
 Rich Mayfield 13 Jul 2010
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

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?
 Reach>Talent 13 Jul 2010
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

 Derek O 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Lurkio 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Derek O:
> (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.

If they chipped a few more holds and made it E2 I might give it a go....
 Jamie B 13 Jul 2010
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.
 UKB Shark 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Skyfall 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Your post was a little ambiguous, to be fair, and had me wondering.
In reply to Derek O:

Ha ha ha. Nice one.
 Al Evans 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Derek O:
> (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.

It's called top roping.
 Jamie B 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Derek O:

> 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?

 Will Hunt 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Will Hunt 13 Jul 2010
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
 Jamie B 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:

> 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:

> 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.

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.
 MHutch 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You vandal. Can't we just leave Downhill Racer as Livesey intended?
 Derek O 13 Jul 2010
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.
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!
 Monk 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Derek O:
> (In reply to shark)
>
> 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.
 rockjedi12345 13 Jul 2010
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?
In reply to Derek O:

> ... 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?
 rockjedi12345 13 Jul 2010
 Derek O 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Monk:

Very well put, I see what you mean.
 Chris H 13 Jul 2010
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
In reply to UKC News: I've just accepted an updated description for the route. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161
 crankey 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Mark Kemball: who sent that
 JKinsella 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Mark Kemball:

Grade should probably be changed too...
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.
 crankey 13 Jul 2010
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.
 Dan Dyson 13 Jul 2010
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
 Chris H 13 Jul 2010
 Wee Davie 13 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I hope you will be able to post the FA pic of the route (in decent resolution) soon.
 Dan Dyson 13 Jul 2010
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.



 Chris H 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Dan Dyson: yes I was at the meeting and found that a little strange but thats democracy for you!
 Dominion 13 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> 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...

||-)

 Yanis Nayu 13 Jul 2010
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.
 chiz 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Martin Haworth:
> (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.
 Jamie B 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Dominion:

> 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
 JKinsella 13 Jul 2010
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

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


 old skool 13 Jul 2010
In reply to jkarran:
> (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

Yes, both accounts could be true. But only one is. This Edwards' thing has been going on for years...

 JKinsella 13 Jul 2010
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (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.
 crankey 13 Jul 2010
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.
 hdog76 13 Jul 2010
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

 Jonny2vests 13 Jul 2010
In reply to crankey:
> (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?

 crankey 13 Jul 2010
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:
 gallam1 13 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:
> (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.

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.

 Jonny2vests 14 Jul 2010
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).

Tangler 14 Jul 2010

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
H.Swainsworth 14 Jul 2010
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.

Tangler 14 Jul 2010
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 ;-)
In reply to MHutch:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> You vandal. Can't we just leave Downhill Racer as Livesey intended?

Excellent!

 Will Hunt 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Hardonicus 14 Jul 2010
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?
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
 tony 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Dominion:
> (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.

(Apologies if you're not referring to 07 - I've rather lost track.)
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:
> 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.
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
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!
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
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
In reply to Derek O:

> 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:

> 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.
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 14 Jul 2010
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!
 Will Hunt 14 Jul 2010
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!
 Will Hunt 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
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....?
 Will Hunt 14 Jul 2010
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.
 jkarran 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> 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
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
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!
 Hardonicus 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
In reply to jkarran:
>
>
> 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
 stewieatb 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Craggs: 'Cheat' at Wilton 1?
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
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?


Forgive ignorance, whats the story with these?
 Quiddity 14 Jul 2010
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.
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.
 Simon Caldwell 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Will Hunt:
> 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.
 Simon Caldwell 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Ackbar 14 Jul 2010
In reply to plexiglass_nick:

>
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!
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Toreador:
> (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.

Quite possible, I am a long way away from my library - so mostly spouting hot air!


Chris
 jon 14 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to jon:
> (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.

A proactive approach will always be difficult to implement.

> Jon de Montjoye
> Land of cheese and monkeys.

When did you move to the Peaks?
 jon 14 Jul 2010
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (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?

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...'

 lowersharpnose 14 Jul 2010
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
 Derek O 14 Jul 2010
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?
 jon 14 Jul 2010
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.
 MJ 14 Jul 2010
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
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
 Tobias at Home 14 Jul 2010
In reply to lowersharpnose:
> (In reply to jon)
>
> 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
 Darron 14 Jul 2010
In reply to jon:
>
> 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)

 jon 14 Jul 2010
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!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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.

Actually, the chipping was on Moss Ghyll by Norman Collie, not Moss Ghyll Grooves.

 jon 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Tobias at Home:
> (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...
>
>

'Course not, nudge nudge, wink wink, chip chip...

 Morgan Woods 14 Jul 2010
In reply to gallam1:
> (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

true....at least the Menestrals were a) good at it and b) acknowledged it.
 Simon Caldwell 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> 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:

> 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.
 Simon Caldwell 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Thanks, I was just passing on what I vaguely remembered reading
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 ...
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

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
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Peccavi is the one thing we never hear anyone say nowadays ...

Except when recounting General Napier's joke.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I've just done a Google on that and see that it was a pun "I have Sindh"
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> 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/
 Robo 14 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Terrific pun, though - and yes, with a double meaning.
 old skool 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Robo:
> (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
 Al Evans 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (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.

Where is this admission other than he wire brushed it, normal tactics at the time, which I know to be true.
 wiwwim 14 Jul 2010
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
 chris_j_s 14 Jul 2010
In reply to chris.griffiths:
> (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

I genuinely can't 'get' the tone of this message - is it for real or just immensely sarcastic?
In reply to Al Evans:

> 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!
 mark s 14 Jul 2010
In reply to chris.griffiths:
> ME obviously has a lot of naked talent and rightly enjoys exhibiting his prowess to us (generally inferior) locals.
>
> 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
 Will Hunt 14 Jul 2010
In reply to wiwwim:
Err no. Of course not.
Gorrilla 14 Jul 2010
In reply to mark s:
> (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

I think you are entirely missing the context of chris's post.

 ChrisJD 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Gorilla:

> 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?'

 Al Evans 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (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!

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?.
 lowersharpnose 14 Jul 2010
In reply to mark s:

This one?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=198

How hard is Monster Munch thought to be?
 gallam1 14 Jul 2010
In reply to mark s:

For those that cannot find it, this is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HNp7mh5LeM&

It would be interesting to know if anyone has repeated/worked this.
 Richard Hall 14 Jul 2010
In reply to gallam1: Looks 7c max to me.
 John Gillott 14 Jul 2010
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.
 simoninger 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Al Evans 14 Jul 2010
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.
Parrys_apprentice 14 Jul 2010
stunning that a thread about climbing is one of the longest on UKC at the moment. Usually it's a religion one.
 match 14 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> 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
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
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?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That would go along with Mr Edwards' previous claims regarding previous routes of his.
 shaker 14 Jul 2010
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.
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
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
In reply to shaker:
>
> 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
 Chris H 14 Jul 2010
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.
 Chris H 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris H: ...or the phantom driller of course!
In reply to Chris H:

The Phantom Driller. Another route name, surely.
 Tom Last 14 Jul 2010
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..
 Dominion 14 Jul 2010
In reply to tony:

> 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...

;-)
 Yanis Nayu 14 Jul 2010
In reply to UKC News: Do you think there will be a "Mark Edwards is a legend" page on Facebook?
 Colin Moody 14 Jul 2010
 Iain Peters 14 Jul 2010
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.
 grizz 14 Jul 2010
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
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.
 shaker 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> (In reply to shaker)
> [...]
>
> 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?
 liz j 14 Jul 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Chris H)
>
> The Phantom Driller. Another route name, surely.

Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 14 Jul 2010
In reply to shaker:
>
>
> 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
 Steve Parker 15 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??

Ooh, nicely done! Bad, though!

;0)

Gorrilla 15 Jul 2010
 Sargey 15 Jul 2010
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?
 jon 15 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j:

Mark my words Liz, someone won't be happy with that.
 Big Steve 15 Jul 2010
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
 eggburt1952 15 Jul 2010
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
 smollett 15 Jul 2010
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!
 wiwwim 15 Jul 2010
In reply to smollett: how about an ASBO?
 eggburt1952 15 Jul 2010
In reply to wiwwim:
> (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
 JJL 15 Jul 2010
In reply to Big Steve:
> (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.

 ERU 15 Jul 2010
 woolsack 15 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Is that a Phantom Driller Mark I or II??

Well I'll invoke Godwins law and mention Hilti
In reply to smollett:
> So many well respected climbers publically slandering him and his family.

I think that all depends on whether it turns out to be true.
 lowersharpnose 15 Jul 2010
In reply to RockArchivist:

Still slander though, innit?

No, not if true.
 Al Evans 15 Jul 2010
In reply to RockArchivist:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> 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."
 ericinbristol 15 Jul 2010
In reply to woolsack:

very good...
 Phil Kelly 15 Jul 2010
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?
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 15 Jul 2010
In reply to RockArchivist:
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> [...]
> 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
 liz j 15 Jul 2010
In reply to RockArchivist:
What does 'innit' mean??
Is it a close relative of an Eskimo?
 Phil Kelly 15 Jul 2010
In reply to Chris Craggs:
>
> 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 ;-)

 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 15 Jul 2010
In reply to RockArchivist:

Interesting and very similar to that last hold on Oedipus!

Chris
 Robo 15 Jul 2010
In reply to old skool:
> (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?

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...
 Enty 15 Jul 2010
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
 Rich Mayfield 15 Jul 2010
In reply to hdog76:
> (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 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".

 stewieatb 15 Jul 2010
In reply to Rich Mayfield:

The real question is, who's the least ethical?

Medwards
Redwards
or Jedward?
 hdog76 15 Jul 2010
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.
Ziggy Stardust 15 Jul 2010
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?
 aln 15 Jul 2010
In reply to Ziggy Stardust:
> (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?

Bizarre comment considering this is the only thread you've posted on.
Are you a personal friend?
Ziggy Stardust 15 Jul 2010
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?
 aln 15 Jul 2010
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
 Tom Last 15 Jul 2010
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (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...?
>


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...
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 15 Jul 2010
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 @ndyM@rsh@ll:

so is there anything he could do to show he didnt do it?

 Tom Last 15 Jul 2010
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll)
>
> so is there anything he could do to show he didnt do it?

Prove someone else did it I guess?
 Kemics 15 Jul 2010
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?
 Tom Last 15 Jul 2010
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!
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 15 Jul 2010
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:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> 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.
 Tom Last 15 Jul 2010
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!
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.

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
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
In reply to Southern Man:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
> 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.
 Kaya 15 Jul 2010
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
 Kid Spatula 15 Jul 2010
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?
 edwardwoodward 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Hood:
>
> 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?

You forgot:
4. The Chewbacca Defence: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid

In reply to edwardwoodward:
> "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

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?
>

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

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (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

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."
 Monk 16 Jul 2010
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
> (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.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (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...?
>

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.

 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (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?
 Monk 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (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?

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.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (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.

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.
 Quiddity 16 Jul 2010
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.

> "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.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to plexiglass_nick:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=160161

Andrea is Daisyclimbing
 Quiddity 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Jonny2vests 16 Jul 2010
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
> (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.

 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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
 Simon Caldwell 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Kid Spatula:
> 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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Sam Mayfield:

why would you have a vested interest one way or the other?
 Big Steve 16 Jul 2010
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?
 ericinbristol 16 Jul 2010
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.
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
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
 Big Steve 16 Jul 2010
In reply to crankey: maybe he does not think UKC is the be all and end all of the climbing world?
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Big Steve: that all depends whos on the forum.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Big Steve:

He was on it a lot prior to the article's publication.
 francois 16 Jul 2010
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)
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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


 Will Hunt 16 Jul 2010
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!
 Simon Caldwell 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Big Steve:
> 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!
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.

Derbyshire Ben 16 Jul 2010
In reply to All (and Alan):

You and Yours on R4 now discussing online anonymity and pseudonyms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sz3rr

 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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 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
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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
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
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> 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.
 woolsack 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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.
>

It'll need to get like the registry office soon, with a couple of witnesses plus the FA and second
 Richard Hall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
> He was brave to give it another go really!

6c on bomber gear? Sounds like a warm up.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:
> (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.

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!
 seagull 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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

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)
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to seagull:

> 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.
 Will Hunt 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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

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
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> 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:

> 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.
 Lead dnf 16 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:

It's on page 9 of Climb issue 60 (Feb 2010).
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> 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.

Do tell. In for a penny ...
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to thomas m:

lol - I stopped looking at January. Thanks
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to JonC:

> 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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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?
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> 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.

 adsheff 16 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to JonC:

> 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.

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.

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.

 Lurkio 16 Jul 2010
In reply to adsheff:

Hope you've got your flame-proof pants on....
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> 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?

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.

 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator UKC Supporter UKC Supporter 16 Jul 2010
In reply to adsheff:
>
> 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
 Simon Caldwell 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Lurkio:
> Hope you've got your flame-proof pants on....

It's too obvious, no-one will bite (I hope!)
 Simon Caldwell 16 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:
> 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?
 Brian H 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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
 adsheff 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Toreador:
I was looking for some answers??
 ericinbristol 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Toreador:

> 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:

> 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

 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Brian H:

> 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
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> 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
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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Brian H 16 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:
> (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.

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:

> 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?

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.
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
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..
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!
 adsheff 16 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to Brian H:

> 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.

If you mean this thread then it's still there: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319853&v=1
 Brian H 16 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to adsheff:

> 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.

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.
 Simon Caldwell 16 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:
> 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.
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 16 Jul 2010
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.
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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
 rocktigger 16 Jul 2010
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.
Tam Stone 16 Jul 2010
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?
 elliptic 16 Jul 2010
In reply to rocktigger: That was 29 Palms, another Edwards route and another controversy.

See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=411273
 Big Steve 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Tam Stone: explain what my 'shitty reply' was on your thread, and on this thread "wee man"
 Adam Lincoln 16 Jul 2010
In reply to rocktigger:

Not only vague, wrong route!
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (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 -

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


 Micky J 16 Jul 2010
In reply to stewieatb:
> (In reply to Rich Mayfield)
>
> 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.
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to death drop:
> (In reply to stewieatb)
> [...]
>
> 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
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Another fan of Cornish clotted cream....mmmm
Jam first or last?
 Sam Mayfield 16 Jul 2010
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)
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Good choice, that's the only way!!
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to Sam Mayfield: if its only 6c+ french climbing then its not that hard really. (obviouse holds abit pumpy)
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to thomas m: post that page now please.
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll: you are totally missing the point.
 steve456 16 Jul 2010
In reply to crankey: Unless I'm missing it, I reckon you are. Check what andy was replying to.
 Lead dnf 16 Jul 2010
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
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to steve456: ok
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
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.....
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j: wow!!! im feeling you
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to crankey:
Are you? That's a bit worrying!!
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j: Its a term of mutual understanding dont you know.
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to crankey:
Ah, that's ok then. I thought you were talking about my scones for a minute there
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
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
 liz j 16 Jul 2010
 crankey 16 Jul 2010
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:
> (In reply to crankey)
>
>
> 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:
> (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.
>


Maybe,just maybe, he doesn't care.

 liz j 16 Jul 2010
In reply to bouldery bits:
Oh I think he does..........
 Skyfall 16 Jul 2010
In reply to liz j:

and why do you say that?
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.
 Kaya 17 Jul 2010
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!
 @ndyM@rsh@ll 17 Jul 2010
In reply to Kaya: But then there'd be two lines under UKC, that'd look weird.
 Kaya 17 Jul 2010
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.
 tonanf 17 Jul 2010
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:
> (In reply to bouldery bits)
> 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.
 Jamie B 17 Jul 2010
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.
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.
Tam Stone 18 Jul 2010
In reply to lowersharpnose: I thoroughly agree.
 3leggeddog 18 Jul 2010
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
 Enty 18 Jul 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:

You don't know Nic do you?

E
 3leggeddog 18 Jul 2010
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.
 liz j 18 Jul 2010
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.
 aln 18 Jul 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (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?

To confirm what?
 ksjs 18 Jul 2010
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:
> (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.


Nope, it's a kangaroo court.
 Timmd 18 Jul 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (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.

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
John Dunne 18 Jul 2010
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.
 jon 18 Jul 2010
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....
Serpico 18 Jul 2010
In reply to J Dunne:
> (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.
John Dunne 18 Jul 2010
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.

 aln 18 Jul 2010
In reply to J Dunne:
> (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:

> 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.
 aln 18 Jul 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (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.

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".
 aln 18 Jul 2010
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?
 willoates 19 Jul 2010
In reply to aln: Surely filling in the holes would be easy, just a bit of crushed up granite and glue rammed in.

Will
 Chris H 19 Jul 2010
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?
 Skyfall 19 Jul 2010
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.
In reply to aln:

> 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.
 Michael Ryan 19 Jul 2010
In reply to JonC:
> (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.

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.

 Al Evans 19 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Ok Mick, what do suggest the guidebook says about the route though?
 Michael Ryan 19 Jul 2010
In reply to Al Evans:
> (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:

> 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".
 Al Evans 19 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> It can say what it wants. Not sure that guidebooks can actually speak though.

They speak through the written word.
 CurlyStevo 19 Jul 2010
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (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.

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.

 Timmd 19 Jul 2010
In reply to bentley's biceps:
> (In reply to liz j)
> [...]
>
>
> 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
 Timmd 19 Jul 2010
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
 francois 19 Jul 2010
 nomisb 19 Jul 2010
In reply to francois: Good god - thats awful either way....
 Tom Last 19 Jul 2010
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?
 francois 19 Jul 2010
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!
 shane ohly 19 Jul 2010
 jon 19 Jul 2010
In reply to shane ohly:

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
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
 Iain Peters 19 Jul 2010
In reply to shane ohly:
> (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.



Theclimbinglab 19 Jul 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Can we all wake up now and see that ME needs keeping in check
 ksjs 19 Jul 2010
In reply to shane ohly: theyve done a really neat job on Hold 3, nice
 rockjedi12345 19 Jul 2010
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
In reply to Timmd:
> (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 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...
 Kid Spatula 20 Jul 2010
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

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.
 Pekkie 20 Jul 2010
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'?
 Hat Dude 20 Jul 2010
In reply to Kid Spatula:
> (In reply to willworkforfoodjnr)
>
> 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.
 francois 20 Jul 2010
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.
 CurlyStevo 20 Jul 2010
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.
 eggburt1952 20 Jul 2010
> (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

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
 Pekkie 20 Jul 2010
In reply to francois:
> 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.
 Tyler 20 Jul 2010
In reply to francois:

> 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.
 liz j 20 Jul 2010
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.
 royal 20 Jul 2010
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?
 Hugh Cottam 20 Jul 2010
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.
 liz j 20 Jul 2010
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
 francois 20 Jul 2010
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.
 Andy2 20 Jul 2010
In reply to Hugh Cottam:
> (In reply to eggburt1952)
>
> 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.


 Hugh Cottam 20 Jul 2010
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.
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
In reply to Tyler:
> (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.

Maybe we should think again about that too. Especially if it leads people to