UKC

James Pearson has made the fifth ascent of the 'post-break' Parthian Shot, E10 6c, at Burbage South Edge in the Peak District. 

Read more

Great write up and description of the process by James Pearson.

Just shows how cold it’s been in August.  Unreal.

Not sure what he's on 😁 - that bottom wall doesn't look like a slab to me.

But really interesting to see his views about the protection and his ethics in trying to always do in the best style so far or even "better".

That top slab rockover move still looks f***ing scary though.

Isn't that more a yo-yo than ground up?

Love the retro Hard Grit music on the video, takes you right back to the late 90s!

He made it look very steady; worlds apart from Ben's sketchy foot-swap on the rope!

How tall is James? He always comes across as pretty tall but that could be in comparison to other climbers, who are often titchy. 

“Parthian Shot has always been climbed starting in Brooks' crack … I chose to start down and left, climbing the same initial arete as the route Dynamics of Change…

“I climbed it like this simply to avoid the possibility of placing the side runner in Brooks' crack … without having to follow ambiguous rules

“… it is possible to climb only using holds in the slab … but it seems a bit daft to me to force a harder, more dangerous route by eliminating obvious holds.”

Some interesting logic going on there.

An impressive ascent nonetheless.

Great article, loved the detailed history of the various incarnations of the route and improvements/changes in style over time. Needless to say, a great effort from James!

Overall it seems like a fairly sensible approach to me, side runners are generally considered poor practice so climbing a slightly different start that forces the inability to place a side runner (while also offering quality climbing on a natural line and not significantly altering the difficulty) seems like an overall improvement in style to me.

Yes, a great write up from James. From a distinctly armchair perspective, the Dynamics of Change start does seem a bit more logical (more independent of easier routes), and will be interesting to see if this becomes the way of future ascents. Not being local I hadn't previously realised DoC was so close to Parthian; in a way it clouds my view of what seemed a really big line at the time of Pete's ascent.

Quite a difference I think. Climbing the 'slab' without using the arete sounds eliminate from the description and the direct route James took is not eliminate in that it is a direct variation to the route. It may well be harder but taking a direct (and obvious-looking, to me) line rather than traversing in from an HVS is an improvement on the route. 

It reduces to “I didn’t want to follow arbitrary rules” but “I followed my own arbitrary rules.”

These are completely subjective opinions, as are what constitutes “natural line” and “not significantly altering the difficulty”.

Yeah, surely if the route starts up BC then the gear in BC isn't a side runner. As long as you don't climb past where the routes diverge, just to place high gear and reverse. Which is why I presume previous ascents have been considered to use a side runner.

I think they're quite separate. It sounds like James climbed the rib on the right and then Parthain goes up the right/middle of the buttress. DoC climbs the left of the rib and then the left arete onto the left-facing slab. Much more independent than Archangel and Don for example. 

The trouble with routes that start up the crack of neighbouring routes then traverse in, is that there's not necessarily a logical place to place the top piece before you move onto the main line. It could be at hand height on the traverse, or is that artificial since you could move up and back down very easily to protect your route better? Making a route totally independent of easier options removes this dilemma, so I can see his logic.

Direct start to Wuthering (E2 5b) next then. Can't believe it hasn't been done; looks piss. 

I'm not saying there isn't still independent (and desperate-looking!) climbing on DoC. If this does become the normal way of doing Parthian in future, and that surely is the bigger line, then DoC will turn into a link-up.

Even I noticed that one. A big roof with no gear. Lovely!

Ah, so I see, if the route from which the original comes out is a crack route then it is not okay but if it is a face route then that’s fine.

The words “logical” and “easier” in your last post are doing rather a lot of the heavy lifting. See my point about subjectivity.

Surely, the least arbitrary rules would be: no (DoC) arête and no crack (Brooks). Which is what JP discounts as being “daft”, despite the above.

I think Ben Cossey climbed this start into Parthian (by headtorch!) in 2007 and called it Nocturnal Emission https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/british-trad-extremes.html

obviously has broken several times since then.

You're trying to talk about hard and fast rules for something that is ultimately somewhat subjective and is always going to require judgement calls on a case by case basis. You're also boiling it down to single factors when most examples will require consideration of multiple, perhaps clashing, elements.

The arete start is clearly more in keeping with the rest of the route in terms of style and difficulty, looks slightly more direct to my eye and also sidesteps some tricky questions about siderunners. It's clearly a justifiable decision and the votes on your posts show that consensus of opinion is against you.

There's perhaps a case to be made for going more direct and more eliminate by ignoring the arete, but you don't need E10 experience to recognise how artificial and pointless it can feel to pretend holds that are right there next to you in easy reach don't exist. There's a big difference between:

• eliminating the crack by using a line that's completely independent from it and out of reach
• eliminating the arete even though you're forced to be right next to it

Except that “eliminating the arete even though you're forced to be right next to it” is a completely subjective opinion (have you been on it?) and the start of “the crack” was the way that the route was originally climbed.

People can chose to (arbitrarily) climb what/how-ever they wish but if they wish to suggest that their way is less arbitrary or, in some way, better then they’d do well to be equally open-minded with their reasoning for not choosing another way.

You could always go and climb it each way and report back with which method you think makes more sense 

But then I’d also have to come up with some bulls1t to justify my arbitrary choice, no?

Ffs. All climbing is pissing about on rocks with our own Bullshit and arbitrary choices. An improvement on style of one of our most famous routes is most definitely newsworthy.  

“pissing about on rocks with our own Bullshit and arbitrary choices”

Precisely my point. Best just to be open about that fact.

If you want. I'm not bothered either way.

JP has offered his opinion. We can all agree or disagree with him, but ultimately it doesn't really matter

Hardly completely subjective. The holds that are available on the wall dictate where it's possible to climb it. James says that the only feasible option without either crack or arete is right next to the arete and I don't see any reason to doubt that assessment.

Obviously. But lots of routes are commonly climbed by a different line than the first ascent and listed in guides as such when consensus has formed that a different line is better in some way.

I don't see any evidence of James being closed-minded. He's not dissed the original line or criticised anyone who climbed it, he's just chosen a different line himself and given a well-reasoned explanation of why he preferred it. The only person I see being closed-minded is the one refusing to understand or accept his reasoning and trying to discredit it with questionable logic.

“always try to match or improve on what has been ethically done before.”

“it seems a bit daft to me to force a harder, more dangerous route by eliminating obvious holds.”

Well done James, I'm sure doing it on a 'cold' day in August is considerably harder than when I did it on a genuinely cold day in winter (admittedly maybe too cold, hence numb fingers and toes which contributed to the foot swap being such a gripper). Good bit on the history and making the effort to add the start up the arete - which does seem pretty obvious - I climbed up to the break that way to place a cam 1 time...

A couple of notes, which only marginally change the details of mine and even less so KJs ground up ascent but do add a little more info.

Me and Pete Robins tried it ground up in the weeks before KJs ascent. The first day we placed all the gear on lead but did fall off, and hence turn it into a yoyo style ascent (it was still really scary). Pete went home and I tried it a few more times (over the next 2 weeks). I abbed in (with eyes shut, honest, not that it matters!) and placed only the same gear in the flake for my subsequent visits. Obv this was pushing the boundaries of what might or might not count as ground up, but I was only doing it this way because that was how I wanted to try it, not to set any records. On my last visit I felt I had given it a good enough go in this style, fallen off a fair few times, so gave up. Kevin did join me on this session and had a few goes but didn't succeed. He didn't place any of the gear but used mine, which was essentially pre clipped and pre placed for him - like I say it was gear which had (kinda) been placed on lead, and not 10 perfect pieces placed from abb. He went back another day and did do the 'ground up' ascent - I think someone else abbed in for him and placed the gear, maybe more/better than what I had been using?

When it came to reclimbing it after the first flake broke I did as James says - climbed the original line up Brooks crack, trav left and up. I placed a higher side runner in Brooks, I can't remember exactly where but I think it was a body length or so higher than where you trav out. My thinking was it would keep me off the ground if I fell off the crux and the flake broke, but from higher would be less help. My excuses where that from big trad/adventure routes you often wiggle 'off route' by a couple of meters to place gear, I was a bit more of a wimp (wife, kid, dogs etc), and I found the route hard (I'm not as good as James, Jacopo etc). I placed gear in the flake on lead but then did fall off the crux. The fall was less pleasant with the side runner as it did pull me right a little into the arete below rather than just into space/against the flat wall, but it was a lot better than hitting the deck. I left the gear in for the next go, when I did manage it, so although pre placed on the ascent it was only the 3 or 4 pieces that I had placed and equalised as best I could on lead...

The way James has climbed the route gets rid of any ambiguity about where the runners in Brooks can be placed (onsighting a route at Gogarth I would have no qualms about climbing 6ft off route to place gear, on grit it could be called cheating!) and it's def a harder, and purer ascent with the direct start and placing all the gear on the lead go (as others such as Neil and Jacopo have)

Good holiday that James and Caro have had...

Thanks for adding that detail. As a punter, it always adds to my interest in top-end ascents when other wads add more context to the story like this.

Here is a bit of extra info to add to the story. Toru Nakajima also climbed directly up to the flake, placing runners on lead. He believed this was the second ascent of Nocturnal Emissions, he then went straight into Parthian Shot also placing runners in the flake on lead. Here is the write up of his ascent https://www.beyondtheedge.co.uk/alex-in-the-100th-issue-of-rock-snow-and-th...

Awww.  Do you need a hug?

Just curious why you are determined to be so mean-spirited about what looks (on the film) like a really sensible line and a great effort?

If you think those two quotes are contradictory then you don't understand climbing as well as you think you do. But it's generally better to actually make a point in your own words rather than just quoting bits of text and hoping we'll correctly infer what you're trying to say.

I hoped you’d recognise the separate quotes were responses to your points but it seems not.

Fundamentally, the point is that climbing, as deacondeacon stated, is “pissing about on rocks with our own bullshit and arbitrary choices.”

 The quotes:

“match or improve on what has been ethically done before.”

and

“it seems a bit daft to me to force a harder, more dangerous route by eliminating obvious holds.”

are both very subjective viewpoints. There seems a lack of awareness that these are arbitrary and subjective choices. That, as Sparrow Guns points out, varies with the crag on which any given route is situated.

In short: It’s all just “pissing about on rocks with our own bullshit and arbitrary choices.” better to leave the psychobabble justifications out of it.

Do you need a boy/girlfriend? Find your hugs somewhere else, please.

See above for answer to your second question. Though, I’d point out, I actually applauded the ascent. It is the (needless) justification of choices that I was questioning.

Hole. Stop. In. Digging. When. A.

Rearrange

E

That would make the assumption that I would want to go back on my argument. Why on Earth would I want to do that? The court of public opinion is often found to be wanting and this argument costs me little.

In reply Shush:

You're right of course. Almost certainly about everything. The argument is MUCH more important than an inspirational climb. You win obviously. Time to rest on your laurels and bask in the sweet sweet glow of being utterly correct. About everything. Especially the bit about pedantry being better than achievement.

It costs you life's most precious commodity, time.

And there endeth today's sermon.

There. That wasn’t so hard was it.

Ssssshh!

You called?

Two words: "mind-blowing!"