UKC

Tom Pearce has made the second ascent of The Human Skewer Direct Start, E10 6c, at Chair Ladder in Cornwall.

Read more

Be interesting to know how he thought it compared to the Moors routes quality-wise? It doesn't sound great from his description!

Well, that should ensure there isn't a third ascent!

Bit disappointed there wasn't any chipped hold, engineered gear slot, cheeky bolt controversy.  

Sounds like any of those would have fallen off by now!

Don’t worry, I’m sure some UKCer will soon come along and mention them………..

It’s been a while. 

People mention it because the Edwards' actions are some of the worst and most blatant examples of cheating and lying in climbing. 

Can you back up your statements with evidence, please. Thank you.

In the words of Tony Soprano "you sh*ttin' me?" 

But since you mention it, search the drilled cam "pockets" on ukc & read the CC guide from 2000. 

Also go & abseil down some of their claimed lines, such as the one on the hanging face under Swift Flight of Fancy at Sennen where holds have been created with the use of a drill and bolt holes drilled. Oh, bolts at Carn Barra to facilitate to roping. There's more no doubt.

The Edwards' claims are an unfunny joke. 

'ere ye are boy

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2010/07/cornish_controversy_-_drilled_cam_s...

I agree...and given that there isn't, it's probably the first ascent

And don't forget (ever) the abomination on Red Rose

Have a dislike for that statement. Yes there have been questions raised about the Edwards’ routes. However at the time they were far and away the most able climbers climbing in West Cornwall and there was more than a little jealousy / sour grapes from the less able locals. 

You have no evidence for those assertions. 

The question that springs to mind when jealousy/sour grapes is used to explain criticism or doubt is why it doesn't seem to apply to everyone equally - in this case, other people climbing hard routes. Is the Cornish scene especially bitter?

Sour grapes is an easy accusation to throw in any situation where someone of lesser ability criticises someone of greater ability. But is that all it is? Is there another explanation? Sometimes you do get smoke without fire.

Anyway, always interesting to see obscure hard things getting done, well done Tom. It sounds awful.

Maybe the most despicable comment I've ever read on this forum.

Mick 

I think the West Cornwall scene was particularly vitriolic in the 80s. Other climbers around that time who were doing similar things did not come in for nearly as much flack. Gibson was suspected of dubious behaviour at the time some of which he has admitted in his autobiography, and Livesey was referred to as “The Michael Angelo of Peak District Climbing” in Crags following the creation of Downhill Racer (E4 6a) yet both are now widely respected unlike the Edwards who both put up some excellent first ascents. 

A shame that a good effort from a strong young climber has to spiral into this nonsense. Rowland was the standout climber living in West Cornwall at the time they set up Compass West. Mark Edwards was certainly climbing at a very high standard during the 1980s and 90s. Between them they made a massive addition to Cornish climbing producing many fine routes. There are some controversial routes and they were making use of fixed equipment (particularly bolts) to an extent not seen in the area before or since. There was some heavy cleaning - this is to be expected as not all of the rock is the perfection found at Bosigran. There may be some improved holds and tactics that other climbers found unpalatable in West Penwith. They weren't doing things that some other climbers in other parts of the country weren't doing. To dismiss all of their routes as unclimbed, chipped or cheated on is unkind, uninformed and untrue. Good effort Tom.

What evidence can you give that what I am saying is untrue (or even unkind)?

Mick Ward, spare us the pearl-clutching, mate!

It's baffling to me that the self-professed fan boys here keep asserting that this is "nonsense" and repeating the speculation that it was all local climbers out to discredit Mark Edwards. 

No one has evidence that Mark climbed these routes. I mean it was a long time ago but, surely you'd want photos for the mags, sponsors, for the psyche! The achievement of climbing prowess! No photos, no belayers, no witnesses. You know what Jerry would have done is the same situation, gone and climbed the route in question on demand! A situation that never arose for him because good climbers get verified by their peers.

Mark Kemball seems to be a local and of an age where if he were climbing in Cornwall in the 90s that he must know virtually every climber west of the Tamar from that era. So who were the people chipping and drilling to discredit him?  They must have been known within a tiny climber community. Following this logic, some Spanish must climbers must have also been out to discredit him as his route Watermark at sector Wild Side in Sella is also completely chipped.

"Vitriol from jealous climbers", this old chestnut. How come Shane Ohly wasn't subject to this persecution then? How come Pat Littlejohn wasn't hounded in this way? 

What you are saying is that despite a volume of evidence of absurd levels of chipping on virtually all ME's hard routes and a history of weird denials and counter accusations with no corroborating evidence given, is that you still choose to believe the claims. Claims, that if true, would place Mark Edwards as THE trad climber of the '90s, setting a standard not surpassed until Dave Macloed got going. Better than Birkett, Bransby, Houlding, Macaffie, Cubby...

Also how many doubts about any of those boys? Yeah, none. Clearly, Marks Edwards is a special case. 

It matters because climbing historically relies on honesty and transparency to accurately record what's been done by whom at the cutting edge. It's not like, oh I don't know... say boxing; where if you claimed to have 13 unbeaten fights, it would be very easy to verify through that sport's regulated record keeping. If you don't care about this fine, but you wouldn't be reading the news article if you didn't. 

Well done to Tom Pearce on the probable FA, a scary looking and hard route!

I didn’t particularly want to reply to this because I couldn’t be bothered getting caught up in another controversy, but I’ll say my perspective on everything I’ve taken from trying/abbing lots of his routes in the hopes to clear stuff up a bit.

A good amount of the routes have definitely been messed with, (bolts,chipping,cement…) main ones people have already mentioned..red rose, first and last wall, titanic, the few people have mentioned, and a few mentioned in the guide that have had bolts chopped.

Other than the routes that have already been mentioned and the few in the guide, I have not came across any more obvious damage to any of his other routes. There’s a lot more without damage than with, from what I’ve seen. Obviously that doesn’t make it acceptable

I would say that the large majority of routes I’ve check out have been been very loose, the other Day abbed down a line and even my rope was constantly flicking off loose flakes and footholds. But if the routes haven’t been touched in 20-30years and have been weathered drastically by the Cornish storms, I can definitely see how they’ve got to this state. If the rock was solid, they’d be some of the best climbing in the country, (that I’ve tried).

The Human Skewer was loose for 20m then improved the higher up you went. If someone were to tell me it had 10 ascents, I’d not believe them, but 1 or 2, 100% would. I wasn’t knocking off huge pieces of rock, just lots of little bits, ones that you could have easily not even touched on the first ascent. Some slightly larger bits came off, but no more than fist size or so. The large flakes look very unstable too, however I didn’t break any of them.
 

I’m not entirely sure this clears anything up, but hopefully someone finds it useful/interesting 

Tom

Slightly hyperbolic Mick, given some of the unpleasant bile we've seen in these pages over the years, but I agree, pretty low. 

Nice one, strong effort on the route!

Hi. Its all too easy to sit behind a keyboard and pass negative comments about other's actions. I don't personally know the "Edward's family" but I know that Marion Wintringham always had good things to say about Rowland & Mark (when they lived in Finistrat, Costa Blanca). The only criticism I would have is I heard Rowland killed seagulls whilst developing much of the Great Orme! But, again, this is from a long time ago and maybe just hearsay.  

I love that your comment started out making a defence of the Edwards' reputation and finished with the allegation that Rowland was a seagull-killer.

Gold!

You might want to start replying to the person you are actually replying to rather than constantly picking a fight with 'UKCNews'?

I've seen worse, Mick.

But I think that an accusation of a 'false' ascent claim is a different level to discussion about chipping, drilling etc. It may well be that dodgy tactics were used back in the day but I've never really come across the suggestion that we had a McCallum-style fantasy going on.

I have recently seen a photo of Mark Edwards on the route concerned on Farcebook.....

Nah. That was Keith McCallum.

aside from all the allegations, genuine question: E10 6c? I was under the impression that  E9 6c would generally already be a chop route... anyone know how are we getting the extra adjective grade here? 

Like many before you (and excusably given its eccentricities) you have not grasped the British grading system.

In a nutshell, British 6c encompasses a huge range of difficulty, and one 6c move next to gear is a lot easier than ten 6c moves with a death fall.

Terribly sorry old boy, I tapped the returning arrow symbol below the comment in question and the auto fill did the rest. Just like I did now, strangely. My profuse apologies. In case it wasn't clear, that was a reply to Mark Kemball's comment:

"they were far and away the most able climbers climbing in West Cornwall and there was more than a little jealousy / sour grapes from the less able locals." 

This is pure conjecture on his part. 

It's surprising how little anyone has to say about the drilled pockets, which even taken in isolation is an action so extreme it surely renders any conversation about the protagonist's honesty null!

The rumours about Edwards' senior chucking nests with chicks off sea cliffs are printed in John Redhead's (mostly terrible) book 'And One for the Crow' which, amusingly, features staged photos throughout! 

Anyway, not much to conclude other than Mark Edwards has chipped routes and lied about it, so who would take him at his word? 

It's a tricky one this. If someone is known (or in this case, as good as known) to have lied about one thing, does it mean they've lied about everything? Probably not, but in the absence of evidence either way, it would also be naïve to assume that everything else they have claimed is true. So what should history record, when it comes to unevidenced claims by known liars? This was Schrödinger's FA, which both happened and did not happen simultaneously.

But, why would you chip a route, or drill holes, or whatever, and then NOT climb the route. If you're doing that, you're hardly going to leave it in a state that's too hard for you.

I don't have any direct knowledge of this, but having read about it several times over the years I think the most likely conclusions are:

• The Edwards were very able and talented climbers
• They weren't above altering climbs that in their natural state were beyond the leading standards of the day (they weren't the only ones doing this, whether they were more or less "enthusiastic" about this is open to debate)
• They weren't communicative about any indiscretions (again not the only ones, etc)
• There were several SW activists who (although not as "good" climbers as the Edwards) wanted everything left pristine and for the next generation if not currently climbable.
• This (no surprise) led to some conflict and hardening of positions, remaining tight-lipped etc.

So whilst there are climbs which have undoubtedly been "damaged" by the Edwards, I don't think there's any significant evidence to doubt that the routes were actually climbed.

Well put. Underhand tactics involved in FAs and falsely claiming FAs are two very different things.

I was also under the impression he had fabricated holds and runner placements not ascents. I don’t recall any question over this ascent just some scepticism of the grade. 

I'm sat here pondering whether Mark reads this stuff and, if so, surely he is entitled to respond to any criticism. Or, maybe he takes the same stance as John Dunne who said he was "Weary with the comments over the years re. Parthian Shot and couldn't be bothered anymore!"

Historical "witch-hunts" as to 'who did what (?)' are all too easy to levy against past generations. Does this mean we're going to accuse Gary Gibson for claiming lines people say he never climbed? Pete Livesey for chipping holds?.... and Jonny Dawes for fracturing the flake on Indian Face by hammering wires into it? That "flake" still exists incidentally ; JR has it at his house in Catalunya!! (and... "One for the Crow" is a GREAT BOOK!!! ... no other climbing literature has an abstract painted 'cock and balls' as its front cover!)    

Yes, I'm pleased I brought a smile to your face! With so much chaos and bad-feeling across the world right now, it's great to have this little corner of the UKC internet where we can still exercise a sense of humour and mutual respect for one another. 

I stand corrected: not wires in the flake... but a hammered peg... allegedly!

It was from my warehouse home here that my involvement with E9 6c was filmed and recorded. This happened within the last few weeks of my departure from this special perch. John Mortimer’s son, Jeremy, produced an excellent piece for Radio Three called, ‘Between the Ears’. Dominic Clemence produced and directed the film for BBC2. This was the attempted story of The Indian Face, a fierce route on the cathedral of rock, Clogwyn Du Arddu, on the flank of Snowdon. I liked the bit where I am sat under my climbing wall in the studio flippantly explaining the image I painted on the scar where the flake had been. This small granite flake had come away in my arms whilst testing the peg that had been smashed into its side. I drew a quick sketch on the wall of ‘the hunt‘, something that had stayed with me from viewing the Lascaux Caves in France. Only two people had seen it. Paul Williams had photographed it and Johnny Dawes had scraped it off (or rather, an acolyte had scraped it off). One had died and the other had seemingly gone mad! [1]

Tom's above description of the looseness of the lower part of this, which he generously allows could be down to it not having been climbed for 16 years, sounds pretty suspect. If anything you'd expect storms to remove tiny loose pieces of rock, not create more. Do you really climb a new serious E10 without cleaning it properly? Well, maybe! And maybe the granite there does weather and crumble really fast. I don't know. But given the apparent brazen dishonesty about other aspects of ascents, it seems fair (from a totally neutral and non bitter local perspective) to be a tiny bit doubtful. Extraordinary claims, and all that.

It's not the underhand tactics, it's the lying about them.

It seems a very strange leap to say 'well he drilled all these pockets and said that he didn't*, but there's no way he'd have lied about climbing a route'!

* I acknowledge the extraordinary possibility that someone went around and drilled ME's routes after he'd done them.

Andy, In regard to your point about storms washing the route, please check out its location in the guide book, it is almost at the back of the zawn which is around 10m above sea level. I haven't personally witnessed a winter Cornish storm but i suspect that its impact on this particular route will be minimal. Some of the rock at the back of the zawn where the route goes is the 'crumbly' granite which easily breaks off. There is a large weak fault line of this running from near the base of the route diagonally up to the seaward end of the zawn.

Whilst belaying during the actual accent i don't recall any loose rock coming off (i was very focused on the task in hand, so it is possible that some loose did fall past me). However in the practice belay immediately before the lead there were still some loose bits that Tom was removing, probably not from key hold though. As I shunted the abseil rope to exit the zawn there was loose rock getting knocked off any time that I touched the wall.

On a wider point to all, it is a shame that comment on historical events has somewhat overshadowed a fantastic achievement from a committed young climber.

It's worth saying that this was after six days of Tom 'working the route'. Do you really lead a second ascent of a serious E10 without cleaning it properly? 😉

I suspect we may be looking at sections of really scrittly rock that crumbles.

Well done Tom.

Sorry, I misremembered Tom's comment about storms - he was talking about looseness on some of the other routes, not this one specifically.

Wouldn’t The Human Kebab be a more accurate name?

I'm not saying "there's no way", just that it's, to use your word, a bit of a leap. Sometimes people, when caught out, will deny/lie about things. That's different to setting out to lie in the first place. As a climber I imagine there could still be some satisfaction in climbing something near your limit, even if the tactics were dodgy at best. There wouldn't be any satisfaction in just making something up.