UKC

Franco Cookson recently made an ascent of The Prow at Kyloe-not-so-in-the-woods-anymore, on which he found a new sequence. His ascent quickly received a range of responses from armchair critics and previous ascensionists; some arguing that he had not climbed the route, and others arguing that it was simply a different sequence on the same line. Whatever the consensus turns out to be, there is a nuanced argument to be had on the nature of lines and sequences, which Franco delves into below...

Read more

Cue more Franco Bashing from UKC arm chair critics....Chapeau sir!

good hard highballing !! well done ! maybe the answer is for all first ascensionists to colour the used holds with permanent marker so we cam all follow their beta and lose all joy and fun from finding our own way up  

I'm not really sure about the article, Franco seems to spend the first half saying what he climbed is basically the same as the previous ascents, and the second half justifying why climbing the feature using a different line to everyone else is ok. Personally I don't really care either way but I think he needs to get off the fence and either downgrade it as the original had duff Beta or name it as a new, easier but still quality problem. It cant be both. 

Franco

Thanks for that thoughtful and measured response. I really enjoyed reading that and thinking about some of points raised. 

I can understand how boulderers get obsessed and fixated on only using certain holds in a certain order to claim a send. But do modern bouldering and highballing ethics now require you to first watch at least [x] You Tube videos of previous ascents by others in order to determine what is in or out in order to tick a send? 

What about onsight attempts (or whatever that is called in modern parlance)? Or ground up, no beta ascents on highballs etc?

For routes it is ludicrous to demand that a particular sequence and/or holds on the line are used. Otherwise we'd end up with paint spots to mark the holds which can be used (think indoor climbing...). Climbing history is full of examples where future ascentionists have found a better or more logical or less contrived or easier sequence or a sequence which they need to use given their size and/or stature or where they use different and better gear (eg knee pads, mats) than the first ascentionist. 

What is sad and frustrating is modern day social media hysteria, diatribe and vitriol that is unfortunately such a part of wider society.

Anyway, the most important thing is that you're out climbing, having fun and enjoying life. 

Well done on a great effort here and on previous routes, highballs and projects.

C

As someone who has not seen the feature in flesh, having watched the videos and seen the Earl photos, Dan V looks like he climbs pretty much (but not quite) what Andy climbed and envisioned, Ned and Will drifted further right and Franco climbed "the wall to the right of the Prow".

This may just be the camera angle but, looking at it with a bouldering eye, Franco's line looked more like a direct start to the E4 traverse than the Prow. I have never been there though so this is full armchair critic stuff. It does, however, chime with the article, which as a poster above notes, seem to contradict itself by switching positions half way through and hints that Franco is not 100% confident in his opening arguments.

Regardless of the above, I think Franco's comments about online commentary are very valid and we should be more considerate in how our comments/criticism is phrased. I'm not sure his reputation for courting controversy is as well deserved as people think and there seems to be a group of "usual suspects" who have the pointiest tongues.

It looks like good climbing. Give it a name and a grade and we can all sleep happy!

Varian The Librarian (E9 7a)

I had assumed that was a wind up by someone else!

Apologies for looking indecisive. My argument is pretty clear: I think it makes most sense to say there is only one line up that prow/wall, but I appreciate that people may have different views on it. 

No need to apologies for having an opinion Franco! I think we all enjoy a frank and open debate/discussion.

(FYI, your guide gave me a new enthusiasm for climbing in the North Yorks Moors, my mother in law lives below Kirby/Broughton Bank, hats off to you)

I would generally say that if your way is easier then that should be the main 'line' and the other way the 'original variation'. If your way is harder then your way should be the variation?

Depends what the criticism is actually for I guess; it's not immediately apparent. If it's not so much for trying to claim a new route but actually folk saying you should have climbed using other holds to say you've done an existing route, then my response would be 'get a life' or similar. But I agree that some should show a bit more respect and think carefully about whether they would say the same thing to someone when meeting in person.

That sounds logical to me.  There must be loads of E5s, even, that would be E9 if you climbed them a metre or so to the left.

"Give it a name and a grade and we can all sleep happy!"

Can you imagine the pelters people would have given him if he'd just done this straight out? Poor lad can't win. 

Hi Franco, 

I'm a big admirer of what you are doing - we met many years at Bamford and I've been interested in your ascents ever since. There are some of your lines im particularly keen to try this summer.

As ever British climbing is a storm in a teacup over pointless and contrived things. 

I think one particular point of importance is the level of self promotion that these things come with, especially in the modern social media age.

For example, in the article you state that its around E7 at the moment, yet the clickbaity thumbnails on various platforms state E9/8A in extremely large letters. 

I'd imagine that could rub some people up the wrong way (I dont care, UK grades are ridiculous at the best of times).

Just my 2p. Which is obviously irrelevant as none of this actually matters.

I think you're on the money there, i've just re-read they article and my previous comment about being on the fence was wrong, seems like its pretty clear the opinion is the prow has been done at E7/7c +or- whatever. Fair play, I'm not sure which is braver the climb, or coming out swinging against the established order of the Northumberland climbing scene!

I thought Franco was saying he initially thought that but then holds broke, hence higher grade, but could be wrong.

What no criticism of the 'brushwood platform' that has been built under it?  I thought that sort of thing riled you Chudders?

Having looked at the videos of both ascents side-by-side ... I can only conclude that they are different lines.

This shouldn't be read to take away from what Franco has climbed.  He should name it, grade it and claim the accolades that come with that of being the first ascensionist.  Excelled work Franco!

If I were to provide any criticism here ... it is that I think this incident could have easily been avoided.  If I am totally honest .. I struggle to believe that Franco didn't know this was going to kick off.  In fact .. it almost has an air of organized controversy.  I struggle to believe that anyone would turn up to climb the Prow (A E9 7a county high ball super classic known throughout the UK!), having zero knowledge of the line, climb something, claim the Prow, then go on to downgrade it, post it all over social media, then write an article about how surprised he was that it all kicked off.  Would it not simply have been easier for Franco to have climbed his line, high five at the top, check that he has indeed climbed what he thought he set off to climb (given there are videos of it), realize that perhaps there is minor possibility that he hadn't, and post that he's climbed a new line right next to the Prow?  Zero controversy - easy.

I'm definitely an armchair commentator with no skin in the game, but here is my tuppence worth.

My gut reaction watching the various videos was that Franco did look like he was climbing something different. This impression may be enhanced by the camera angles, but I think it is primarily to do with the different body position. That impression is also heightened by the amount of time spent by all the climbers in the part of the route where they were in different positions. Franco says this is only one move and I have no reason to doubt that, but it appears to be the crux and so the videos linger on it.

It is easy to imagine another route/problem with a much greater variation in the holds and sequence used (from the article we learn that there is only one hold different), but where the body positions of the different sequences are much more similar; imagine for example a sequence that can be climbed direct, or can be climbed via a sidepull and foot out to the left but with your body moving up the straight line. Would any of us have the same instinctual reaction to such a route? Can we honestly say that we are discounting this reaction in our debate?

Franco himself points out situations where a different body position results in different lines; most commonly on aretes. He argues (convincingly in my opinion) that this does not apply here.

So the question is - is a route defined by the line taken by the climber's body, or by the holds used? And if the latter, assuming we don't limit repeat ascents to exactly the holds used by the first ascensionist, how do we decide if a given hold is in or out? Where is the boundary of the line?

I think it's also worth pointing out that Dan, Ned and Will all did it ground up, rather than a rope inspection like franco. This is bound to affect where you think a route logically goes. If you've spotted holds way out right from a rope, you'll be drawn to them.

As others have said, it's quite hard to be too sympathetic when you're instagram/YouTube posts are loudly shouting about e9/8A. 

Just to chip in for accuracy, Dan and Ned checked it out on a rope to give it a clean and find some holds - it got pretty dirty in the intervening years after Andy’s ascent. Will top roped the route several times before his ascent.

Nick

Sorry, I stand corrected. 

Life on Hold gives the impression they did it ground up and I don’t think cleaning on a rope makes their ascents qualify as headpoints which is what Franco is saying in his article (where did he get this from). Headpoint like redpointing (to my mind) is working something thoroughly before leading which they didn’t. 
 

Edit: Actually Nick (in the interests of accuracy 😉) you did say that they worked some moves when reporting at the time. “"Dan and Ned had a quick look for holds on a rope and after a brief clean and working of the moves off the ab rope, decided it was possible above pads” So I guess it was on paper headpoint albeit with minimal working

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2011/11/dan_and_ned_-_the_prow_e9_and_black...

To be honest, my memory of the day isn't great but I don't think Life on Hold gives the impression it was done ground up; the opening shot of the route shows a rope hanging down it with someone on it and the holds are all ticked and chalked!

My memory of the film is just as bad it seems 🙂

It's not a great film...

🤣

"As others have said, it's quite hard to be too sympathetic when you're instagram/YouTube posts are loudly shouting about e9/8A"

A wider point but is notifying the world of one's ascent on Intasgram, Twitter, You Tube and social media an original sin in the UK climbing scene? Too un-British? Or does the original sin only apply to certain climbers?

Where would the UK climbing community get most of its news stories about some of our more beloved UK climbers or some (unknown to most) Euro wad on some (unknown to most) sports climb or boulder problem or a repeat of some hard trad route first climbed in 1986 or some ascent on some unknown peak in the greater ranges?

The majority of climbing news seems to consist of links to some hard climber's loud shout on Insta, Twitter etc about what they've just done two minutes before with the obligatory photos and videos and sycophantic likes below. And if the news doesn't report quickly enough on something that's hit the social media channels, some bright spark always quickly appears asking why the news channel isn't monitoring the social media accounts of whichever very important person involved.

Double standards and hypocrisy in the climbing community? It's OK for him/her to do it but not for him/her? Never!

FInally, as someone alluded to above or on the other thread, imagine the pile on which would have happened had Franco immediately notified it as a new route with a new name? 

Perhaps he should have said "I've done something on or around the Prow, I don't know what grade it is, I don't know whether it's a different sequence or a new line or what it is. I don't know what it's called, if indeed it can be called anything. I'll leave someone else to confirm if they ever feel the need to climb it and actually do so." 

Hi, in the past when I have done things that others have critiqued, when they would never have got out of their armchair to do the same, I ignored their responses and you should do the same.

You climbed the basic line with perhaps a couple more innovative moves on the right but you climbed the line no question for me.

It would be nice if in the age of social media we could accept more diversity.... when I soloed The Don on sight albeit with an old skool mat folded over the mini ledge at the bottom, the latter was viewed by some an imperfection, the experience for me was the ultimate: commitment, success, feeling immortal for an instant, happy days...   

Ran into a similar situation in Red Rocks. 7th pitch of Dreefee (the photo on pages 3/4 of the book shows the exact move). One guy did a really hard stand up move on the right (14a?) which was by far the crux of the whole route.
A certain local wad found a way to skip that bolt on the left at 13c or so. Was it an ascent or not? The right-way guy put it down to a route-finding error on his own part.
Realize that a short, hard, iconic, highball type route is different. But, if you're going to get that specific about "approved" sequences then things could quickly get pretty ridiculous.

 

Not a very strong line if its debatable whether you have climbed it or not is it?

Maybe go and find a decent route for your next project?

If you can clip the bolts with ease you're on the line, barring eliminates where the route is more closely defined. I may be a bolt-clipping punter but I would assume the same rule of thumb applies to trad, otherwise no-one would know if they'd ever climbed anything.

Clearly no bolts here, but after a lot of matching up holds between videos it seems Franco never deviated more than a metre or so to the right, well within an acceptable range (let's assume the centre of the line isn't straight up the arete, given A. no-one's climbed it that way and B. it doesn't look possible to climb it that way - it definitely lies slightly on the right wall as the prow steepens). The camera angles don't help, nor does the softly curved arete which doesn't give an obvious reference point from different angles, but you can match up the pockets easily enough and realise at any point he could have reached out left and used the arete (if there was anything useful on it). Yes he moves right a move or two earlier and it looks like that skips the crux of the left method (the slap right onto a horrible-looking slopey crimp before moving the legs out from under the arete), but his centre torso is never noticeably right of the pocket he gets left-handed overhead before sharing into the right mono - this same hold is used right-handed by Dan (albeit moving right onto it).

Isn't the grade meant to represent the easiest / most efficient way up a particular route, constrained within a reasonable (say a half-to-three-quarter arm-span) distance either side of centre-line (again, eliminates aside)?

On that assumption, he's clearly climbed the line. If it's easier that way, the original grade was wrong (or the route should have been defined as an eliminate with holds 'out' or a requirement to stay on the arete until a certain point) - that doesn't detract from the achievement of other ascensionists, it just means they didn't find/use the most efficient line. I'm more than capable of turning a 6a into a 6c any day of the week (or harder, then I fall off if I haven't already), but that doesn't make it a 6c.

Now if you class it as a boulder problem the above probably doesn't hold true, but for outdoor route climbing, route-finding is a big part of the challenge, and it's not like he claimed the previously-set grade. I suspect a few people want to preserve having a classic E9 on their patch!

I think, in the case of "The Prow", the reason it is a problem held so dear (and why it has received this much attention) is because of who climbed it, its history and what they were trying to do. Andy didn't fail to "find/use the most efficient line", he was trying to climb the prow feature in its entirety. had always dreamt of doing it, hence he stuck to a line as close to the Prow as possible, even if he had to move right at the top. Climbing is full of stories, especially to us old b*ggers, and a beloved local figure/legend climbing an LGP which is a striking line is a compelling tale and one people won't let go of easily.

As repeat ascensionists have moved on to the the right wall earlier with each passing ascent, it now, to me, looks less like an ascent of "the Prow" and instead of Andy have failed to find the easiest sequence, one could say that subsequent ascensionists have failed to take on the challenge set by Andy, even if that challenge seems arbitrary/contrived by some.

I would say the folklore that surrounds some lines/climbs weighs heavier than others and for those steeped in folklore, deviating from what has been done before will always fall under more scrutiny, even more so when its Franco who seems to be subject to more scrutiny/criticism than most!

A few points on this:

• Route finding is not a big part of the challenge in bouldering, finding the best sequence for you is. The line is generally more defined in bouldering.
• I think part of the "beef" is that Franco appeared to have "claimed the grade" in all the social media prior this article.
• No-one is bothered about the E9 bit, all the repeaters have called it F8A.

If my mate scooted around the hard bit and tried to claim something I’d have been taking the piss before he even got to the top. And I’d not stop until he went back and did it properly  Everyone’s been here surely. I blame the camera person / spotters. They should have said erm, mate, back around, that’s not a prow

Films never do high balls justice. I’ve stood under this and it’s way higher than that film makes it look. 

'In 2022 you may wonder what may start a huge controversy in the world of highballing – perhaps chipping? Or overbrushing? Or tick marks? What has proved more divisive is something that is arguably a lot more straightforward – where the highball actually goes.' Franco Cookson

So, the problem, in my opinion, with Franco's essay is that all he is doing is trying to justify the fact that he didn't climb this piece of rock the way everybody else has so far and that, in reality, somehow everyone else knew 'where the highball actually goes'.

'The Prow' Andy's line, follows the blunt arete, climbing as far as possible up the prow, and as far as possible taking the overhanging side, until the climber is forced onto the vertical face as the holds run out on the prow. And the reason I know this is because the prow was originally my project, (my 'line' as Franco would say) and I was the first person to contemplate and try climbing it way back in 2001 (before a shoulder injury put me out).

And my idea, (subsequently finished by Andy) was to climb the prow, the obvious overhanging feature, and in doing this my sequence (as dictated by the rock) ended up being the same as what Andy did with extremely bouldery moves on the steepest part of the blunt arete until a very hard move leads rightwards onto the face from where the large pocket can be gained and the top. This to me was 'the line', the line which walking under the crag grabs you and demands to be climbed and the obvious challenge was to attempt to climb as far as possible up the steepest part. And this is what I tried and Andy did. We didn't climb and claim the wall on the right as this wasn't The Prow. And I would be surprised if anyone else would walk under the crag and deny the obviousness of that line. 

Now, if you instead of taking this line, climb on the right side of the arete, quitting the arete earlier and climb solely the wall on the right as Franco does (even if you end up in the same place for the last four moves) then yes you have climbed a route up that piece of rock but no you have not climbed Andy Earl's route The Prow. 

So the bottom line for me is if you look at the two thumbnails of the videos these instanly give a pretty clear indication of the difference in where Andy, Dan, Ned and Will climbed the Prow and where Franco is climbing. (And yes Ned and Dan and Will do a different sequence for the last three moves at the top but this part is on a Bob Smith E4 and the meat of the climbing - the font 8a bit - is to get to that point.)
And those guys are all on the arete making it as steep and as hard as possible on at the same point as they are on an overhanging part Franco is on the vertical right side. Admittedly not miles away, but far enough to make it plain that what he is doing is not the same thing. 

So my question is if you didn't climb what everyone else did, and in the manner that's been recognised to be the way to do it why not? And if you climbed it an easier way, using a different sequence, why not just recognise that and stop claiming to have climbed The Prow, E9 7a which follows the left, overhanging side of the arete as much as possible. . 

Simply claim your sequence, give it a name and a grade and let people choose which is the 'correct' way. But it seems logical to me that to be the only person to climb the thing you've climbed (albeit on the same piece of rock) and yet claim to have done the route everyone else has does not add up. And yes, this may mean that The Prow is not the magnificent line that maybe we all thought it was but even that doesn't mean you did it. 

And I have already said all of this to Franco in Instagram and I have not insulted him in saying it - though he seems to be offended by the Northern phrase 'I think you've dropped a bollock on this one' - and I wasn't going to post anything in public but since he's written such a long screed then I feel it's reasonable to reply.

In the end it seems to be that this is a simple case of wanting to have your cake (the fame, name and grade) without having earned it (in this case)which seems uneccessary for an obviously talented and bold climber. And if Franco wants to go back and repeat it in the same way as all the rest - even if it is deemed a bit of an eliminate now - I for one will cheer him on and accord him full respect as, having watched the Brit rock video, I kind of like the cut of his jib. 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with reporting what you've done. But slapping a "e9 8A highball" headline on, and then going to say that you did it a very different way and it was actually easier, is a bit disingenuous, and leaves you open to criticism imo.

Why not just say "I went to try the prow, ended up finding it quite escapable, and climbed it a very different way that seemed a bit easier than previous ascents. 

Amen

Richie

In your considered opinion:

1) Is the Prow only what you conceived it to be?

2) Is the Prow only what Andy climbed, using exactly the same holds and in exactly the same way as Andy climbed it?

3) Has anyone repeated the Prow using exactly the same holds and in exactly the same way as Andy did?

4) If not, has anyone repeated the Prow?

5) Before turning up and abbing down the line, was Franco duty bound to watch any previous videos and study photos from Andy, Ned, Dan and Will and/or talk to you etc to get the exact information about exactly where the line is and what holds can and can't be used?

6) If so, where does that leave onsighting or ground upping any harder route?

7) What is the guidebook description and route topo for Andy's route in the definitive guidebook?

8) Is the description in the UKC logbook for Prow incorrect and does it need updating?

I have no vested interest in the answers to those questions either way. I am just a total punter who's curious about some of the questions raised. 

I couldn’t agree more, surely the only way to actually improve the original line of The Prow, would be to follow the overhanging feature all the way to the top - which clearly is a tad difficult! Climbing the wall even further right than the original step right which had to be utilised to bypass the currently impossible section is in no way an improvement, it’s a separate route, if you just want to find an easier sequence just keep moving right again and climb the chimney! 
I’d say give this new route a name and grade and treat it as just that, The Prow it is not.

Its actually my second favourite bouldering film after 'The Real Thing.'

Yes. Blancmange is also what I conceives it to be. So are dogs. And cushions. It's all perception. 

Only Andy knows and perhaps he doesn't know. Ya know?

No. Because the holds change over time anyway. They're different minute to minute. 

Everyone who has will have had a different experience. 

No. Because you can do what you like. It's meant to be fun. Otherwise, it's just indoor sport climbing. 

Do what you like. Just be honest about it. 

Dunno. Does that even matter? 

That's just perception aswell. 

It's definitely wrong. They're all wrong. Always. Because they are a window into a perception based on a snap shot in time viewed through the lense of memory and interpretation.

Same, except my sponsors ofc.

I am just a total punter who's curious about some of the questions raised. 

I'm actually incredibly strong and talented. Atleast, that's my perception. 

Shocking bit of music on that clip Franco, sort ya levels out lad 

Not to be torqued about f7b+ Stanage

Variation on careless torque, start on the ramp 5m to the right of the arete, climb this to is top reaching the arete for the stunning last move. Definitely improves the climbing and takes in all the main difficulties of the arete.....

Richie

In your considered opinion:

1) Is the Prow only what you conceived it to be?
No it's what Andy did. I was just filling in background as why I felt it was OK for me to comment. 

2) Is the Prow only what Andy climbed, using exactly the same holds and in exactly the same way as Andy climbed it?
No again. It's what Andy did but there can/will be slight variations - like at the top the other guys make some different moves once the main part and meat of climbing has been done in the same manner and same spirit as the original ascents. And maybe there's a different foothold on the arete etc etc People are different heights too that's going to affect the way the use the holds. Andy's very tall I'm short, we're going to use different sequences.
As Andy's ascent wasn't on video and the pictures of the way he finished were not easily available then it's reasonable that people did the top bit differently - as it's also a part of an E4 it's not the hard bit either. 
But, to repeat, they tried to climb the prow via it's steepest side as much as possible until the holds ran out forcing them onto the face. 

3) Has anyone repeated the Prow using exactly the same holds and in exactly the same way as Andy did?
If you say EXACTLY then no. But see 2

4) If not, has anyone repeated the Prow?
Yes. Also see 2.

5) Before turning up and abbing down the line, was Franco duty bound to watch any previous videos and study photos from Andy, Ned, Dan and Will and/or talk to you etc to get the exact information about exactly where the line is and what holds can and can't be used?
No, in no way. In fact I hate people wandering round Font with their phones out checking out proplems before their go. However, afterwards if you realise where you climbed is not where others climbed you claim a new variant or new route - or you go 'shit, I'd better do it properly'. You don't claim the line you didn't climb at a grade you didn't do - even if what you did is nails hard.  

6) If so, where does that leave onsighting or ground upping any harder route?
See 5. Just honestly report what you did. i.e. I climbed that bit of rock but I found it more logical to climb 5 feet to the right thus I didn't do what others have done but I think it's more logical so I'm reporting to future takers that this way of doing it has this grade and they can choose either way. 

7) What is the guidebook description and route topo for Andy's route in the definitive guidebook?
Dunno I haven't got it. 

8) Is the description in the UKC logbook for Prow incorrect and does it need updating?
It seems reasonable, it says The soaring arete is climbed on small spaced holds to a finish up the right-hand side of the arete. And Climbs the obvious soaring arete on small well spaced holds to finish up the right-hand side of the arete. The key words are Soaring arete. 
It does not say 'Make a couple of moves up the arete then climb the wall to the the right of the arete via a series of hard moves between monos'. 

I have no vested interest in the answers to those questions either way. I am just a total punter who's curious about some of the questions raised. 
Hopefully that helps. 

"in the same spirit as the original ascents" seems like a pretty useful phrase. That's about the best we can hope for,along with honesty. 

 The soaring arete is climbed on small spaced holds to a finish up the right-hand side of the arete. 

I think anyone who turned up to that bit of crag, without any routes having been established on that buttress, would have the same series of thoughts. "Wow, that's a cool feature. I really want to climb that. Climbing up the overhung side of that looks nails. I hope it will go! Looks a bit high for a boulder problem, I'll give it an ab to see how it climbs".

I think where we differ in opinion is what we thought when we abed the route. All of us looked at the top of the arete on the left and thought it was too eliminate/ contrived, so seem to agree it is logical to finish on the right wall. We even all climb the first few moves the same - on my sequence, you could actually stay further left and under the overhang for a bit longer, if you were well psyched to feel like you were climbing the underside of the prow. You thought it very important to continue up the steep side for one more move (although, ironically, using two holds on the flat wall to the right). Once you do that move, it looks like your body comes round onto the wall and you are then face climbing on small monos. It seemed pointless to try and do one more steep move, when you were just going to turn the bulge immediately afterwards anyway.

There were some implicit questions in the thing I wrote which you've still not answered... 1) What's so important about doing that one move? Do you not think it's a bit of a problem that you are choosing to look for steepness/difficulty, when you then immediately move rightwards into my sequence once you've done that move? I might miss out 3 or 4 hand movements done on the other sequence, but only one of those could loosely be described as "climbing the prow on its overhung side". Do you think the original sequence climbs the prow even? Presumably not... 2) Can you think of any other ultra highball where there is such a defined sequence? If not, why are we suddenly interested in such tight descriptions for this one?  3) is this really a soaring arete? That's certainly not how I'd describe it. Even the original beta, I'd describe it as 'pocket and mono moves up the blunt rib, climbing first on the left and then on the right' (this description would match everyone's sequence).  The test I always like to use when pondering if a new line is 2/3 stars is "can I describe it, without referring to holds". Three star lines follow "the shallow groove", "the sweeping arete", even "The right side of the arete, before escaping rightwards to intermittent cracks". They don't "climb easy ground to below the overhanging prow feature, take this for one move with a right hand laybacking a pocket, to make a difficult pop to a mono on the right face, to then make further difficult moves rightwards, then finishing as for the E4". 4) Do you actually think my sequence is a new route? If it is (and assuming it's easier than the original sequence) would you suggest it's the line of the buttress?  Kind of a ridiculous situation if so.

On a side note, I'm pretty sure most (all?) repeats of The Young have used a significantly different sequence to what Andy did on the FA at the top, climbing further right on different holds. This makes sense when you're on it, but not if you class my sequence on this as a new route. Whatever the conclusion of the lines on this Kyloe buttress, something similar needs to be done for Callaly. 

Regarding that phrase you used. I just didn't really like it. Bit minging in general as a phrase and even if it only means "you've made a mistake", I think that's a pretty arrogant and confrontational thing to say to someone you don't know. As if you're the guardian of all lines in Northumberland! Did it at any point cross your mind that you may be wrong about this? It crossed my mind that I might be, but then I thought through all those unanswered questions I've posed above and couldn't make them work in the context of Andy's original line being independent of mine, whilst remaining the line of the crag. I suppose that's the key point for me. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, Andy's route should be remembered as the big tick and get all the stars. You can't have that if my sequence is a separate route. 

I suppose where there's a big difference between the boulderers and route climbers in this discussion is the athletic gauntlet. I certainly haven't climbed the athletic gauntlet thrown down by Andy. I have very little interest in doing so either. For me, climbing is about a challenge set by the rock. Most of the things I want to climb are outstanding natural lines of weakness. I spend a lot of time abseiling down lines, looking for 3 star things. So often I'll ab down something and think "ah shame, the holds lead off rightwards" or  "bit escapeable there" or "Ah, that feature doesn't actually really climb as it looks" etc. As discussed above, you and Andy seem to have got something out of trying to go fully direct, but then stepping right. That's fine, but for me to want to repeat the sequence hold for hold would be about me testing myself against you and Andy, rather than against the rock. Perhaps that is the boulderer's mindset these days - that they want to complete a set physical challenge, with a kind of nod to the first ascentionist.  For me climbing is more about the cliffs and places than the people. I don't simply want to just walk round the back, but I do want challenges to be straightforward to understand and I want to be free to climb great lines in the way I want. 

Yeh, I take that point. I'll try not to do this in the future. FWIW I suspect my sequence and the original one are the same/similar Trad grades. Both pretty safe and pretty hard, but made significantly easier with modern padding. I'd like to discuss in the future how overgraded many safe routes are, but feel like I need to actually repeat more safe and hard sport style/ highballs first. 

Might be worth repeating quite a few of them, in quite a few different areas, before doing this! 

How do you onsight a route if you need to know what the holds are in advance?

Comments like this one just make me think that most of the people reading these threads have been hugely misled as to how different the sequences are on The Prow. It's nothing like the above. I hope future ascentionists will be honest about what they find there, as I'm pretty confident the consensus in the future will side with me. 

Not trying to get a dig in at you Franco but everyone else has climbed the young correctly according to what Andy did!
“Move back right to stand on the good hand hold, and yet another pancake above”.

 Don’t drag us/the young into this 😆

Read the room.

You didn't climb The Prow. You climbed a variation that suits your skill set. It may well be hard, thin and snappy, but it's not a repeat of Andy's line. Well done on the new route.

Andy F

The original seems to be around Font 7C+/8A, so are you satisfied you climbed this grade in what appears to be a few goes? As the height of the two problems is exactly the same and the landing the same, if the trad grade remains the same, then the difficulty must be unchanged too? 

After all your protestations of 'no criticism' above or on the other thread (I'm presuming the angry comments on the UKB thread are from a different Andy F) it seems that bee called Franco is back in your bonnet.

It is a lovely bonnet though. I like the flowers round the brim particularly.

Regardless of opinions on the matter (of which I have none)... I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for this, Franco. The comment you're replying to is clearly an abstraction to absurdity. I could easily abstract equally absurdly the other way and suggest that the heel hook method on the crux of Evolution is a different route because Jerry didn't use that hold. So should we call it something different? 'Cheatolution'. That would be mad.

Stating facts isn't criticism. Either on here or on other channels.  And I like my hat, thanks.

Andy F

 I see I was mistaken on that. I had been told Andy had gone direct, but Gav seems to think Andy went right too, which makes sense. At least everyone  did the same at the top on that then!

Just seen that soz for the second correction 👍🏻

Ahahaaa but maybe stating interpretation over and over amounts to obsession ? (and does not turn interpretation into facts)

But please don't stop if it satisfies you, it's also fun in a sense. Looks like a mission. A bit _narrow_ in scope maybe, but funny. We love to see people passionate about their mission.

No no no, it's only an obsession if they reply to every comment the person makes, and every comment which supports them. If they only reply to a few then it is merely a diatribe. You really need to understand the long tradition of UKC beefs to be able to tell the difference, but if you don't understand you are still welcome to weigh in with an opinion!

Franco, I'm not sure people have been mislead by reading the thread, I would assume most of us have been (mis)lead by the video footage, in which the two lines (to me) look very different.

Do they? Maybe it's an eye of the beholder thing, but I stared at the holds between the two videos a lot. And although I can see it's a different method the significant majority of holds used are the same.

I think this is perhaps the crux of the issue... it's pretty subjective. I'm with galpinos and to me the videos make it look like 2 different climbs. But my armchair opinion counts for shit. The only people who can judge what makes sense in terms of where this line logically goes or doesn't go are those who have been on it. 

Me too.... for a short route, or highball, they look like 2 different routes, or problems.

Found it easier to compare with the well edited and pleasant music on the first video! Franco's audio has broken my ears

IMHO yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said it!? The point I was trying to make is that those who think they look like "different lines" could have been persuaded by the videos, like me, not necessarily the posts in the thread, as Franco seemed to believe.

This is the fundamental issue. If it was an alpine route, a route on a mountain crag etc we would be agreeing it was a different sequence on the same route. However, looking at it as a boulder problem/highball/micro route they look like different routes to me.

Conversely, I didn't stare at the holds, I just felt in one set of videos the climbers tried to climb the steep rounded prow, bailing out right (some more than others) when they ran out of holds and another video which looked like climbing the wall right of the prow at the earliest opportunity.

If I saw the feature in the flesh or watched both sequences/lines climbed, I might find I'm being ridiculous and they are one in the same, but on video evidence alone, they look like different lines to me, even if they share a start and some holds.

Maybe I just boulder too much nowadays and it has warped my sense of perception!

No one can finally arbitrate whether this is the same route via a different sequence or a different route because it uses a different sequence. The distinction is not sharply felt enough, with people arguing the same thing to different ends. Perhaps, over time, as new approaches to hard routes continue, these kinds of distinction will come into focus. A parallel is the lack of clarity with regard to the definition and relative value of headpoints versus ground-up highballs and of the bold trad route versus the highball boulder problem. There are different opinions, and these reflect the fact that climbing is changing. This is something we should be excited about: that there is still space for new lines, new sequences, new tactics and approaches - as this helps keep climbing alive.

Anyway - well done Franco on continuing to be at the cutting edge, one way or another.

Ahaha… Ok a diatribe

still learning

You've got to wonder where else someone could climb something with about 1 different hold and claim a new route. Seems like a bit of a joke really. Seems simply a different method on the same thing, or at the very most a variation.

Possibly! But... it is different, even if the significance of that difference is unclear. One response is: Who cares? Another is: well... you've not done the route... Another is: these are issues we've not really got answers to yet. I think you're right that it's not fair to hold people to different standards, but some of these "little" British routes really are quite cramped. Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson climbed different pitches on the Dawn Wall... but the scale is somewhat different! I don't think a solid answer is really possible yet.

There are countless examples of boulder problems considered distinct from each other because of a single extra hold and in fact in some cases just because they involve markedly different ways of using the same holds. For example, if you do not drop down and match on the low rail then you have not done The Green Traverse. That's considered a 3* classic.

The controversy in this case simply stems from the fact it's on the cusp between boulder problem and route. If it was on a 40m pitch then obviously they would be alternate sequences on the same. If it was at Minus Ten there would probably be two other problems squeezed in between.

Maybe once both ways get the ground-up treatment we can all be happy calling it a boulder problem, albeit a highball.

Oh My Lord - man with amygdala atrophy and weirdly long arms and legs climbs rock from same start to same finish utilising possibly two monos others did not.

I literally can’t believe the agonised wingebag posturing that’s going on here… only those who can climb unassisted to those hideous top out holds have the right to cut this cake. In fact only opinion spoken from these holds counts IMO - can we see if anyone might like to record their thoughts from there? Preferably a live stream.

Imho, a (boulder) line is a virtual line drawn on the rock where you Climb up with what ever holds you find in there.

if some holds are off limits, it is an eliminate. And generally eliminates are shite.

Forced sequences are also shite. As in, they might offer cool climbing, but this isn’t to say using a different sequence makes that ascent invalid.

in fact, this happens quite often. People find a better sequence to Climb that line, and the grade gets downgraded. You can always Climb it using the original sequence, and thus make it harder if you feel like it.

Whatever everyone's opinion on this, I think we have to agree that Franco has done a brilliant job of poking a stick into a wasps nest - whether it was intentional or not.

Balderdash!!

Mr Long Arms has obviously written a long article so people would discuss it! I enjoyed watching the videos (one I muted Franco's), and enjoyed forming an 'office chair' opinion. Better way to spend my break than looking at the depressing news.

Certainly you don't mean that climbing the line with a slightly different sequence was provocation from start, deliberate meant to trigger derisive comments verging on personal attack on social media, and thus giving him a pretext to express himself in an article ? 

The crux of the matter is: what's really "this" ? Opinion on what ? 

is it (A) about settling the same line vs. different line question ?

Or is it (B) about having to respond publicly to personal attacks based on differing views  on A ? 

I take it that you also believe that only Prime Ministers have the right to express an opinion about Boris Johnson's tenure?

Agreed!  To be honest have you seen the Prow, a scruffy green  wave of  snappy sandstone, not really an aesthetic beauty in the league of say The tube or the Wave at Bowden climbing nice natural features, but alas it is hard and was first climbed by a County legend, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, classic status who knows?

The Bigger story is what happened to the top of the crag? looks like a napalm strike.

The top of the crag was cleared as part of normal forestry activity. Kyloe-"used to be"-In is in a working forest. Storm Arwen took care of the rest.

I once did a first ascent on the Roaches called Crystal Grazer at E5. It was the first route on the wall. I lay backed off crystals in the obvious groove as finger holds to progress, with my feet on pebbles on the left of the groove. Nick Dixon subsequently climbed the groove completely in it at E6, so although in the main the finger holds were the same, the footholds were different creating a separate route?

Rather than worrying about which holds constitute what why not just knock a star off since its obviously one of those 'go anywhere' routes?  

Would hope that someone who knows the lines could answer that.

Not sure that answers my question, this is not FC land, this forest had always been managed in a sustainable way, as in thinning and allowing trees to mature before harvesting, as was evidenced on the approach to the crag over the years, some fine looking furs, good quality timber.

Not sure what the sketch is on top of the crag, as the trees were small low quality timber, a grant to plant mixed forest perhaps?

Indeed it is not FC but privately owned; and I'd forgotten this happening earlier in early summer 2021, which may explain the "napalm strike" appearance (can't say for sure though, i haven't been to Kyloe In since 2020).

https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/kyloe-woods-fire-drone-footage...

The forest is partly an old arboretum and partly a Sitka monoculture and an in-between bit which is where the crag is.

It appears Mr Varian has been back to the crag to have a crack at his namesake line......

youtube.com/watch?v=WcKO-bxjZpE&

Let the war or words (re)commence!

Just watched DV’s vid and Franco’s again.. so Dan is significantly more right than Franco and claiming 7a+ .. seems from my armchair the more you go right the easier it gets.

while an impressive feature seems like one of those crappy boulders where difficulty is contrived by arbitrary rules that while making sense to one person might seem bizarre to another.

For example I did a problem at the weekend that the guidebook said v8, followed what I thought was the line eliminating a good hold on a next door problem but then at home on Ukc see the that hold is in and it’s maybe 7a,7a+ or 7b depending on who you are and how you did it !! 

That's how rock climbing is to the rest of the world. it is a contrived sport (or craft or hobby!), like most (or all!)

Methinks Mr Varian has got his wooden spoon out and is stirring 😁

Looks like he got the sequence wrong, so he can't claim it. He'll have to go back and do it properly

The point Dan is making, quite elegantly I thought,  is that the line is meaningless if you aren't abiding by the spirit of the route. The concept of The Prow is obvious from the name. Any drift away from the concept, if accepted, dilutes the concept and leaves the door open for further drift. If one move to the right is fine, why not two, why not three? There is no logical cutoff. As such the line is only meaningful if the original concept is stuck to fairly rigidly, even if this reveals the route to be the eliminate it always was.

About as elegant as a brick through a window surely? 

You know the DV video isn't his original line, right?  He's making a point

Yeah, I normally love a bit of climbing controversy to take my mind of all the more important but depressing stuff in life but, some how, right now it doesn't feel like the right moment to have a willy waving/pissing competition - no matter how light hearted or "not that serious" you think it is.

But the problem is that nobody has actually stuck to THE line, everyone has gone right at some stage or other. It appears that AE has (so far) stayed most on-line; Franco least, to the extent that it's a different boulder problem and arguably a different route.

We need someone to stay on THE line all the way to the top - will the next contender please step up 😁

The true line of Varian the Librarian has now been climbed!

Bizarre it’s not been climbed before. 

I said FAIRLY rigidly, and the earlier repeats did stick fairly rigidly to the concept of The Prow. Sticking to the concept doesn't imply move for move identical beta.

Regardless of whether or not it's 'on route', Franco's sequence does look a great piece of climbing. Will be interesting what future ascentionists think.