UKC

The latest Rockfax guidebook cover three big areas across the North of England. UKC's reviewer Paul Smith takes a look at the book and decides whether it comes up to the standard of previous Rockfax publications.

Read the review here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=937

Comment your thoughts on the book on this thread.

In reply to UKC Articles:

...a review of a Rockfax without a single mention of grades?! Wow - Chris - you must have been spot on after all!!

;0)

Si

PS: ...noticed a few typo's in that there review Paul (sorry...)

In reply:

A much more thorough review here...

http://www.climbonline.co.uk/reviews.htm

In reply to Anonymous: Excellent review, interesting points about the not-so-selective nature of the County sections.

In reply to UKC Articles: oooh is this the first of many user based reviews??

In reply to TimS:
I thought it a poor review, allowing the author's bias against the guide to cloud his judgements.

On one hand it's slated for cherry-picking crags, a few sentences later it's criticised for including the 'out of vogue' Causey Quarry (and earlier on for the relatively obscure Pule hill and Shooters Nab).

A new edition of the NE England guide is said to be a non-starter due to the inclusion of Crag Willas and Goldsborough, but at the same time the omission of major crags including Barkers is highlighted. You can't have it both ways!

One minute they're supposed to have copied the Northumberland section from the definitive guidebook, the next they're being criticsed for their grade changes.

And so on.

In reply to Simon:

Yes, Simon, that really was a Severe you struggled on !

I think it should also be pointed out that the maps aren't idiot proof....

In reply to Anonymous:

Which is linked into the review.

"For an alternative review check out the ClimbOnline web site "


http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=937

In reply to Toreador:
>

If you read it I think the cherry picking crags comment is more about providing comprehensive coverage at the major crags whist not mentioning others, which means there would be little point in producing a definitive guide for the area just to include the smaller esoteric outcrops.


"in fact only a few routes are left out and it would appear that the reasons for this are more to do with page layout than picking quality lines." Talking about the routes, rather than the grades.

Your review of the review appears to have been clouded by bias towards the guide

In reply to Toreador: Any selective guide that includes Causey has to have it's selection criteria questioned.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

...and definetly not Jacques proof!

I must say I like the guide more than the review, however I do sympathise when a reviewer has not used the book in anger at the more Northern crags, as its difficult to get some meat on the bones. However good work Paul...

Si

In reply to Simon:

Cheers Boss! The weather has so far stopped me from using it anger, but I'm planning on using it as soon as I possibly can.

I'm up your way over the weekend of the 17/18 May, if your around.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


..."With their latest publication Rockfax may have overstepped the mark. Not only have they bitten the hand that feeds them, they could well have eaten the seed corn as well"...



I say...

In reply to TimS:

I'm biased towards all the guides, as I end up getting them all!
I'm just a bit bored with the same old "Rockfax is going to bring about the end of the definitive guides" line being trotted again out despite all the evidence that the opposite is true.