Tssk - Americans...
Matt Heason
Equilibrium at Burbage). Thought it might spark a bit of debate...
It's a hard route, and a fine accomplishment. Headpointing isn't that great
a style, however, and 14d/9a/V14 is a tad bit harder than E10 7a in most
peoples' books.
pete theobald
pete "" theobald
Matt Heason wrote in message <8a5dqb$si8$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>...
Adrian Baugh
>maybe we should tell them 'bout the landing
Maybe they should come over here and climb it just to prove their point.
Adrian.
Simon Witcher
Couldn't agree more. Headpointing is not traditional style, and in
terms of physical difficulty, Equilibrium is frankly rather passe.
Sure, climbers have always indulged in a bit of pre-practise e.g.
Arthur Dolphin t.roping Wall of Horrors, Joe Brown t.roping Great Slab,
but they didn't spend months flailing on the same sequence of moves.
Head-pointing doesn't advance traditional standards, it is an
alternative to traditional style.
If someone of Bentley's abilities wanted to do something trad, he
could go and have a bash at leading ground-up some of the steep,
safe-ish E8s around e.g. Reservoir Dogs, Nightmayer, Dalriada - that
would be an advance.
Remember, the British adjectival grading system is only relevant for
on-sight ascents. It is meaningless to say someone has head-pointed E10.
Bold F8b+ perhaps ?
Simon
pete theobald
pete "boring put down" theobald
Matt Heason
You'e obviously trying to wind people up so you won;t get much of a rise
from me, but this is exactly the reason why a few people have suggested the
idea that we use a 'new' grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope
practice - the 'T' grade. Thus Neil would say that he had climbed T10 7a. It
would be clear that he had top roped the route first. To claim that one has
climbed E9 or E10 one would have to onsight the route. One letter could
provide a fairly decent amount of information regarding the ascent.
I like the idea anyway.
Matt
Mark Tolver
news:8a5mos$uf$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
>
> You'e obviously trying to wind people up so you won;t get much of a rise
> from me, but this is exactly the reason why a few people have suggested
the
> idea that we use a 'new' grading system for ascents done with prior Top
Rope
> practice - the 'T' grade. Thus Neil would say that he had climbed T10 7a.
It
> would be clear that he had top roped the route first. To claim that one
has
> climbed E9 or E10 one would have to onsight the route. One letter could
> provide a fairly decent amount of information regarding the ascent.
>
> I like the idea anyway.
>
psychologically they're admitting that it's an "inferior" ascent. Although
personally, I think that a headpoint/worked ascent involves a lot more
effort than an onsight ascent and just as much committment. An onsight is
all about uncertainty on unfamiliar ground - rarely done at a person's
absolute physical limit but frequently at a psychological limit. Headpoints
on the other hand are about uncertainty over whether a route can be
physically done and trying to not think about the potential consequences of
a failure that can too easily happen. In my eyes, both styles of ascent are
equally as valid.
Back to your point about a new grade though. Perhaps, seeing as we are now
very much stuck with E grades (I can't see T grades being applied to
existing routes retroactively), they should be left as is, and a OS suffix
factored in and applied to onsight ascents. This would make news of new E6s
& E7s interesting again. Rather than the slightly ridiculous situation we
find ourselves in now, where E9 is passe, where, to be newsworthy, an ascent
has to be an E10 when not many more E9s are in existence. It's also means
that existing routes, done as headpoints, could be "upgraded" when a
subsequent ascensionist onsighted it.
Mark
Simon Witcher
from me...a few people have suggested the idea that we use a 'new'
grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope practice - the 'T'
grade.
My view is that head-pointing is not worth grading at all - it's a waste
of time. Dogging a route for a long time is poor style and one will
improve faster by trying a wide variety of routes at or just beyond
one's current on-sight level.
I guess it comes down to whether one wants to become a specialist at one
style or remain versatile.
Simon
Mark Tolver
Simon Witcher <S.J.W...@ug.ee.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38C67337...@ug.ee.ed.ac.uk...
> Dogging a route for a long time is poor style
seems to be challenged. What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic? You'll
find very few people capable of the highest grades who don't subscribe to
headpointing. Even those climbers considered the greatest onsighters in the
country aren't averse to working routes.
Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that headpointing
is such a devalued form of ascent.
Mark
witchdoctor
--
Witchdoctor
coochy coo
who loves ya baby
Simon Witcher <S.J.W...@ug.ee.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38C67337...@ug.ee.ed.ac.uk...
Matt Heason
> My view is that head-pointing is not worth grading at all - it's a waste
> of time. Dogging a route for a long time is poor style and one will
> improve faster by trying a wide variety of routes at or just beyond
> one's current on-sight level.
Rubbish.
Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few decades? My
guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett,
McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc. Now ask yourself how many of them don't
headpoint? None of 'em
Bad style is to top rope a route and then not bother to lead / solo it. All
this serves to do is polish and wear the route for those who would like to
lead / solo it.
If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent on
sight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10, one or two E8's and only a
handful of E7's. In fact we wouldn't have that many E6's either. That would
be progress!
Matt
Phaedrus
"Mark Tolver" <mark....@match-systems.com> wrote:
> Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that
headpointing
> is such a devalued form of ascent.
Possibly for the reasons stated earlier.
All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves
associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where
it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
apply to them!
We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb
or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who
have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way
they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in
question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style
than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
--
Phaedrus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
>
> If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent
on
> sight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10,
I've heard some piss in my time but this takes the biscuit.
--
Phaedrus ( wondering about the concept of progress)
Matt Schofield
>
> We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb
> or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who
> have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way
> they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in
> question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style
> than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
I seem to remember it was sommat to do with End of the Affair at Curbar,
where after Hard Grit had been released, there'd been a few contenders,
one of whom had lobbed off whacking himself quite hard. Another had
turned up and burned it off without much fuss, this inheriting the
disdain of his elders.
Me - I onsighted High Neb Buttress.
Terar
Matt Schofield
--
Return email address junked
Matt Heason
> > Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that
> headpointing
> > is such a devalued form of ascent.
>
> Possibly for the reasons stated earlier.
> All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves
> associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where
> it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
> point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
> apply to them!
>
> or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who
> have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way
> they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in
> question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style
> than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
What and who are you on about?
There are currently (as far as I am aware) 3 E10's, Divided Years, Rewind &
Equilibrium. The first was put up by John Dunne. It isn;t on grit and he
doesn't live in Sheffield. The second was put up by Mark Edwards. It isn't
on grit and he doesn't live in Sheffield. The third was put up by Neil
Bentley. It is on grit and he does live in Sheffield.
As for E9's sure there are a hand full of them on gritstone as there are
elsewhere in the country.
Before posting Neil's (Bentley) and Adrian's (Berry) ascents on our website
I spoke to them both. Neither were happy at giving a grade for the route
because of the criticism it was bound to attract. However, had they done
what Jerry Moffat did for Samson and refuse to grade it that atracts
criticism too. They can't win. Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot
and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are
referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
What do you mean:
I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
> point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
> apply to them!
If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard grade, why
shouldn't it apply to them? The only people who are qualified to up or
downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in question. If you
have a hard time accepting that there are hard routes out there and that
there are people who can climb them, go and climb them yourself and speak to
those people before you so openly criticise them.
Matt
Matt
Matt Heason
> > If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent
> on
> > sight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10,
>
> I've heard some piss in my time but this takes the biscuit.
>
>
>
> --
> Phaedrus ( wondering about the concept of progress)
So name an E9 or E10 that has been onsighted.
Matt
Matt Schofield
>
> >
> > We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb
> > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who
> > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way
> > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in
> > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style
> > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
>
> referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
>
Check out
http://x44.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=413484075&CONTEXT=952604365.1618018316&hitnum=1
Simon Witcher
>Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few
decades? My
guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett,
McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc. Now ask yourself how many of them don't
headpoint? None of 'em
Get your facts straight. Fawcett led Master's Edge after an abseil
inpection. Dawes led Indian Face after a couple of t. rope ascents.
Moffatt did some hard on-sights in the states when he was a teenager.
These standard-setting ascents weren't head-points.
Moon is a good red-pointer and what trad standards has he broken?
None.
As for the other folk, what standards have they set? None.
Don't get me wrong, these others are good climbers, but they haven't
pushed any limits apart from personal ones.
>If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent
onsight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10<
Read my post, I suggested people stick to trying routes at or just
beyond their on-sight ability (i.e. just above, not below).
My argument is that at present we do not have any E9s or E10s, all we
have are E7s and 'T8s', 'T9s' and 'T10s'. Progress would be for someone
to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or
two t.roped ascents.
Mark wrote:
>What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic?...Even those climbers
considered the greatest onsighters in the country aren't averse to
working routes...why do you think that headpointing is such a devalued
form of ascent.<
1. It doesn't transfer to other styles e.g. routes too long to be
t.roped
(head-pointing won't improve your ability in the Dolomites or Yosemite)
2. It's slow (several days per route instead of several routes per day)
3. It shows a severe lack of vision, ambition and patience: Every good
line you siege is one you can't on-sight. It would be feeble to decide
to yourself that you aren't going to get any better in the future and
therefore may as well siege a
route, instead of putting in a bit of effort towards improving first.
Think how many brilliant routes there are around the world, plus all the
lines waiting to be done. Can you really afford the time to spend days
and weeks on just one route?
Simon
Mark Tolver
news:8a81sb$a3r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...> > Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that
> headpointing
> > is such a devalued form of ascent.
>
> All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves
> associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where
> it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
> point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
> apply to them!
>
This is the point I was making earlier. Whether you're arsed about the
onsighting element of the grade or not, we're stuck with E grades as the
standard system and it isn't going to change. However, if more was made of
subsequent on-sight ascents, such as including such information in
guidebooks, or maybe even allowing an onsight ascentionist to change the
name of a route, then it would encourage the best climbers to attempt hard
onsights more frequently.
However, I do think that your last statement demeans the phenomenal effort
put into these new routes. There is a limit to how strong climbers can get,
and I think we're approaching those limits. I find it hard to imagine that
something like Equilibrium will ever see an onsight ascent, and if that
being the case, how is the first (headpoint) ascentionist supposed to grade
it, if in your view, the E10 grade doesn't apply to them.
Mark
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> What and who are you on about?
What bit didn't you understand arsehole?
snip - some handwringing angst from the Hard Grit boys about giving
their routes high grades
> Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot
> and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
For the life of me I can't think why I'd forget something that
memorable.
> As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are
> referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
You obviously have no Idea. However that doesn't change the fact that it
happened.
> What do you mean:
> I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
> > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
> > apply to them!
Because - as you are quick to point out here and elsewhere - the E9\E10
applies only to onsight ascents of which there have so far been how
many?
None.
Therefore, how many E9/E10s are there?
None.
> If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard
>grade, why shouldn't it apply to them?
Because they haven't climbed it in the style to which the hard grade
refers?
>The only people who are qualified to up or
> downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in question.
I think Ben moon would disagree with you.
However I'm not interested in upgrading or downgrading anything.
( I'd make an exception were I asked about the quality of your
education)
What I would question is the motivation of those who claim to have "put
up" an E10 without also publicising that they did not do the route in a
style that would warrant that grade.
> If you have a hard time accepting that there are hard routes out there
>and that there are people who can climb them, go and climb them
>yourself and speak to
> those people before you so openly criticise them.
What have you been on?
--
Phaedrus ( In despair)
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> So name an E9 or E10 that has been onsighted.
> Matt
There aren't any.
Therefore there arent any E9s orE10s
If there are, there's an E15 just up the road from me Mothers house.
It hasn't been done either.
--
Phaedrus - Q.E.D.
Alastair Downie
Matt Heason wrote:
> If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent on
> sight level
Excellent plan! People would search the country looking for ever-easier
climbs! Think of the cakes I could eat!
Schofield - you could be a contender after all!!!
See ya,
al
=========================
Nope. I'm off. TAKE!!!
=========================
Alastair Downie
Matt Heason wrote:
> Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few decades? My
> guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett,
> McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc.
^^^ ^^^
I prefer the phrase "et al"
Adrian Baugh
> Progress would be for someone
>to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or
>two t.roped ascents.
Though I seem to remember (from a recent thread) that Dawes hadn't been
able to do Indian Face on toprope, so he set off to lead it so as to get
that extra incentive to do it. So although it wasn't on-sight it certainly
would count as "after only one or two [or in this case none!] t.roped
ascents".
Adrian.
pete theobald
I've just read the old post by seb that was linked to in matts post. It says
that neil gresham fell off meshuga low down and smacked his head (hospital).
He also said about a bloke who soloed knockin' on heavens door cos' he
thought the lead was contrived. I know someone who climbs with this bloke
who says he's really good, but i've also heard hes off his trolley (no
surprise). He is a good climber but there are alot of climbers in shef who
are prepared to take risks but forget to think that risks have bad results
if you don't beat them into submission. I have a friend who solos everything
below about E5 E6 when he'll get a bit worried and tie the rope round his
waste. (He wants to do masters edge) Hes goo but also a complete loon,
Theres alot of people who have a similar attitude.
I was at froggatt last year and saw an old sheffield student top roping beau
geste and just about toucihng the top out. He climbed it in a very desperate
style but went back and led it straight away. He fell off the crux with two
bomber friends placed as a side runner to protect the lead (completely off
route) he fell and swung having to pick his legs up on the way down. There
are alot of stupid climbers about who don't think about how they would cope
with major injuries. The sheffield scene encourages very bold desperatew
climbing but with no discussion of the risks that are being taken. With the
top climbers being technicians who have honed there skills on sport routes
with the abilitie to climb the routes they put up. The pretenders though are
just crag rats like me who just push through the grades as fast as they can
to acheive a numbered success.
Theres something very wrong with the egos in the peak and with the lack of
good judgement by those trying to emulate the greats. The peak district is
undoubtedly one of the most dangerous places to fall off from since the
ground is always so near. To avoid decking takes alot of skill and planning
as well as steady nerve whilst on the sharp end. It's not as if you take a
factor fall onto your belay. You take a factor one and you get injured!
I currently have:
one friend with a broken arm after falling off a climb. I don't knoew what
it was but i know it was well above his level
one friend with two broken ankles when he bennied on a VS and kept climbing
with no gear.
I've a friend who saw his housemate dyno the crux of artless. Go past the
slap and hit the ground. He fell between two bouldering mats and broke his
ankle.
I expect everyone knows of others.
I think seb has a valid point in his oold post which should be heeded.
pete "dumpf" theobald
Matt Schofield wrote in message <38C797BB...@sco.deletethisbit.com>...
>Matt Heason wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb
>> > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who
>> > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the
way
>> > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in
>> > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style
>> > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
>>
>> As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are
>> referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
>>
>
Jon Read
> Though I seem to remember (from a recent thread) that Dawes hadn't been
> able to do Indian Face on toprope, so he set off to lead it so as to get
> that extra incentive to do it. So although it wasn't on-sight it certainly
> would count as "after only one or two [or in this case none!] t.roped
> ascents".
I believe he spent most of the summer of 1986 'trying' it (ie. toproping
and abortive lead attempts).
Jon.
--
Better to have one sheep a day
than wait your whole life for a tiger
pete theobald
sunday. To make it even easier i kept my trainers on to save me from getting
cold feet.
It's a definite improvement from a few months ago. I went to climb grotto
slab. I couldn't climb that easy then so i couldn't take a rope with me.
Also i though it too easy to climb with my shoelaces done up and it would be
even easier to have tsaken my reucsac off first. I went back and climbed it
properly last sunday. I had my shoes done up and light weight clothing. It's
not too bad. Theres a mantel shelf bit half way up which threw me so it's
not that easy. I'm going for something more simple soon. I might not be able
to do it in an ethically pure way so a blind fold might be needed.
pete "regression" theobald
Phaedrus
"Mark Tolver" <mark....@match-systems.com> wrote:
Ah, the old ones are always the best.
Mark, Ask yourself how many times people have claimed that we're at the
absolute limit of human capability.
I agree with most of what you say but this bit is extremely arrogant.
You should try to work on your imagination
What you think, and what people might one day be capable of are very
different.
--
Phaedrus ( made me laugh)
Phaedrus
"pete theobald" <plthe...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> I think seb has a valid point in his oold post which should be
heeded.
>
What?
You think Seb\Dave should be able to tell people how and how not to
climb?
Get a fucking grip.
--
Phaedrus
Matt Heason
> Matt wrote:
> >Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few
> decades? My
> guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett,
> headpoint? None of 'em
>
> Get your facts straight. Fawcett led Master's Edge after an abseil
> inpection. Dawes led Indian Face after a couple of t. rope ascents.
> Moffatt did some hard on-sights in the states when he was a teenager.
> These standard-setting ascents weren't head-points.
> Moon is a good red-pointer and what trad standards has he broken?
> None.
Masters Edge isn't E9 or E10 because it is 'relatively' safe to onsight. I
believe Fawcett isn't the only person to have onsighted it. And Indian Face
isn't on Grit. So you have picked out two examples of onsight efforts -
what of the head point routes that these guys have done? Dawes headpointed
nealy all of his hard grit routes of the 80's, yet many of his routes are
hailed as masterpieces. Surely they can't be if he did them in 'poor style'
>
> As for the other folk, what standards have they set? None.
I'd argue that all these guys have done their part. Perhaps not all on
desperate gritstone routes in the Peak, but headpointing isn't exactly
confined to a few square miles of the UK.
> Don't get me wrong, these others are good climbers, but they haven't
> pushed any limits apart from personal ones.
>
Of course they have. It doesn't take just one person in one facet of
climbing to push limits. I takes many people, repeating each others' routes
in differing styles to push them.
>
> >If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent
> onsight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10<
>
> Read my post, I suggested people stick to trying routes at or just
> beyond their on-sight ability (i.e. just above, not below).
> My argument is that at present we do not have any E9s or E10s, all we
> have are E7s and 'T8s', 'T9s' and 'T10s'. Progress would be for someone
> to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or
> two t.roped ascents.
Fair enough. My mistake.
>
> Mark wrote:
> >What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic?...Even those climbers
> considered the greatest onsighters in the country aren't averse to
> working routes...why do you think that headpointing is such a devalued
> form of ascent.<
>
> 1. It doesn't transfer to other styles e.g. routes too long to be
> t.roped
> (head-pointing won't improve your ability in the Dolomites or Yosemite)
Yes it does. It also translates to bouldering, sport climbing, indoor
climbing...
> 2. It's slow (several days per route instead of several routes per day)
So?
> 3. It shows a severe lack of vision, ambition and patience: Every good
> line you siege is one you can't on-sight. It would be feeble to decide
> to yourself that you aren't going to get any better in the future and
> therefore may as well siege a
> route, instead of putting in a bit of effort towards improving first.
You are crossing the boundary from reality into fantasy now.
True for lower grade routes, but not for the hardest routes.
>
> Think how many brilliant routes there are around the world, plus all the
> lines waiting to be done. Can you really afford the time to spend days
> and weeks on just one route?
>
>
Personal choice?
There ain't exactly many new lines waiting to be done within an hour's drive
of Sheffield....
Matt
Peter Boyle
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Matt Heason wrote:
>
> > > If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent
> > on
> > > sight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10,
> >
> > I've heard some piss in my time but this takes the biscuit.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Phaedrus ( wondering about the concept of progress)
>
> So name an E9 or E10 that has been onsighted.
> Matt
>
I think that is his point.
Peter Boyle pbo...@physics.gla.ac.uk
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. My mistake.
Halefuckinlujah
Peter Boyle
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Simon Witcher wrote:
>
> beyond their on-sight ability (i.e. just above, not below).
> My argument is that at present we do not have any E9s or E10s, all we
> have are E7s and 'T8s', 'T9s' and 'T10s'. Progress would be for someone
> to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or
> two t.roped ascents.
>
I think there have been E8 onsights, just not on Grit. Certainly
Pritchard claimed to have only abseil inspected Super Calabrese in his
description of the FA, which is near enough for me.
> Mark wrote:
> >What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic?...Even those climbers
> considered the greatest onsighters in the country aren't averse to
> working routes...why do you think that headpointing is such a devalued
> form of ascent.<
>
The very fact that people can headpoint harder than they can onsight
devalues it. It is easier. Therefore cheating to claim to lead a route
graded E9 for onsight ascents without mentioning the style in which it was
done. Most people *are* honest about their headpointing, as they should
because it just plain isn't as impressive an ascent as onsight.
Which isn't to say these ascents aren't impressive anyway.
Peter Boyle pbo...@physics.gla.ac.uk
pete theobald
possible. If some of the harder routes where on sighted then they would be
worthy of a down grade unless someone with alot more talent comes along.
With the hardest routes you have no idea of whether it is possible unless
you top rope the route. The only other way to find out if there is a
possible route is to get someone else to TR it and ask there opoinion. When
your life is on the line i don't think thered be many takers.
With the lower grades (relatively!) it is possible to look at the routes and
decide whether they are possible. with diffs etc. you can see the holds and
work out the sequences from the ground. This gets steadily more difficult as
you go up in grade.
If you know you can top rope a certain tech grade (sorry aboput talking
numbers) then you can reasonably expect to climb that tech grade again. You
still have to be sure that tyhe route is within your abilities. BTW neil
bentley ripped the tip of his finger off pulling on a hold. I think this can
help explain how difficult the route is. There arent many crimps you have to
pull on that hard.
BTW i didn't know that masters edge had ever been on sighted. It might be
masters wall though?
also burbage south has been rated as the least scope for new routing in the
country.
and then: is anyone trying slingshot at froggatt at the moment. It's meant
to be english 7b. Is someone going to try it soon. There aren't many
problems left in the peak and slingshots meant to be the hardest.
see ya
pete "intact" theobald
Matt Heason
> "Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
>
> > What and who are you on about?
>
> What bit didn't you understand arsehole?
>
> snip - some handwringing angst from the Hard Grit boys about giving
> their routes high grades
Just don't remember it. That's all. I can;t exactly discuss something I
don't know about can I. Oh, and chill.
> > Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot
> > and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
>
> For the life of me I can't think why I'd forget something that
> memorable.
>
Touchee
> > As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are
> > referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
>
> You obviously have no Idea. However that doesn't change the fact that it
> happened.
>
>
Like I said above, I can't discuss something I can't remember.
> > What do you mean:
> > I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> > > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to
> > > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't
> > > apply to them!
>
> Because - as you are quick to point out here and elsewhere - the E9\E10
> applies only to onsight ascents of which there have so far been how
> many?
>
> None.
>
> Therefore, how many E9/E10s are there?
>
> None.
>
So use another grading system.
>
>
>
> > If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard
> >grade, why shouldn't it apply to them?
>
> Because they haven't climbed it in the style to which the hard grade
> refers?
Yes they have. That's the way the grading system currently works.
>
>
> >The only people who are qualified to up or
> > downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in question.
>
> I think Ben moon would disagree with you.
>
Probably not when it comes to grit routes. The holds (and lack of) are very
different to most sport routes. This is displayed nicely by the fact that
Bradd Pitt has been climbed with three different sequences and is only two
or three moves long!
> However I'm not interested in upgrading or downgrading anything.
> ( I'd make an exception were I asked about the quality of your
> education)
>
Let's not get personal eh.
> What I would question is the motivation of those who claim to have "put
> up" an E10 without also publicising that they did not do the route in a
> style that would warrant that grade.
>
Because that is the way the grading systems works. Those who put up routes
at this sort of level know this and know how to interpret such grades. Let's
face it, when someone puts up a new E9 onsight it'll be advertised as such.
There won;t be any doubt. The cludy are comes around E6/7/8 where routes may
be put up without trying them first. You'll probably find that the first
ascencionist will have described the style of ascent somewhere. If they awnt
to lie then that's a whole different ball game.
>
>
> > If you have a hard time accepting that there are hard routes out there
> >and that there are people who can climb them, go and climb them
> >yourself and speak to
> > those people before you so openly criticise them.
>
> What have you been on?
>
>
Routes?
What has that got to do with it?
Matt
Matt Heason
Phaedrus <thrasy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a8chk$hcv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8a89ub$rkv$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
> "pete theobald" <plthe...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think seb has a valid point in his oold post which should be
> heeded.
> >
>
> What?
> You think Seb\Dave should be able to tell people how and how not to
> climb?
> Get a fucking grip.
pete theobald
don't seem to realise what the point is. I don't think that anyone has the
right to tell anyone how to do anything. But i think adding constructive
criticism about not killing yourself is a fair point.
pete "whatever" theobald
Adrian Baugh
>
>and then: is anyone trying slingshot at froggatt at the moment. It's meant
>to be english 7b. Is someone going to try it soon. There aren't many
>problems left in the peak and slingshots meant to be the hardest.
Harder than Wizard Ridge?
Adrian.
Mark Tolver
news:38C7A33E...@ug.ee.ed.ac.uk...
> Get your facts straight. Fawcett led Master's Edge after an abseil
> inpection.
So - not an onsight then, is it?
> Dawes led Indian Face after a couple of t. rope ascents.
Definitely not an onsight. And how long has he been working that Wizard
Ridge thing?
> Moffatt did some hard on-sights in the states when he was a teenager.
Hmm... makes you wonder why he hasn't done the same in his own backyard.
Mark
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
>
> > "Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What and who are you on about?
> >
> > What bit didn't you understand arsehole?
> >
> > snip - some handwringing angst from the Hard Grit boys about giving
> > their routes high grades
>
> Just don't remember it. That's all. I can;t exactly discuss something
I
> don't know about can I. Oh, and chill.
>
> > > Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot
> > > and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
> >
> > For the life of me I can't think why I'd forget something that
> > memorable.
> >
>
> Touchee
>
> > > As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you
are
> > > referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
> >
> > You obviously have no Idea. However that doesn't change the fact
that it
> > happened.
> >
> >
> Like I said above, I can't discuss something I can't remember.
Why? You don't seem to have any problem with discussing
things you clearly can't understand
> > > What do you mean:
> > > I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> > > > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick
to
> > > > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent
doesn't
> > > > apply to them!
> >
> > Because - as you are quick to point out here and elsewhere - the
E9\E10
> > applies only to onsight ascents of which there have so far been how
> > many?
> >
> > None.
> >
> > Therefore, how many E9/E10s are there?
> >
> > None.
> >
> So use another grading system.
You miss the point - I don't care about this or any other grading
system.
What bothers me is that the people we're talking about make claims that
don't stand up - but morons like you take it on board as gospel.
And that these same people act like Crag Police whenever some youngster
threatens to steal their thunder.
>
> > > If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard
> > >grade, why shouldn't it apply to them?
> >
> > Because they haven't climbed it in the style to which the hard grade
> > refers?
> Yes they have. That's the way the grading system currently works.
What?
Have you understood anything that's been said so far?
> > >The only people who are qualified to up or
> > > downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in
question.
> >
> > I think Ben moon would disagree with you.
> >
>
> Probably not when it comes to grit routes. The holds (and lack of) are
very
> different to most sport routes. This is displayed nicely by the fact
that
> Bradd Pitt has been climbed with three different sequences and is only
two
> or three moves long!
> > However I'm not interested in upgrading or downgrading anything.
> > ( I'd make an exception were I asked about the quality of your
> > education)
> >
> Let's not get personal eh.
Is that Grit personal or Sport personal?
> > What I would question is the motivation of those who claim to have
> >"put up" an E10 without also publicising that they did not do the >
>route in a
> > style that would warrant that grade.
> >
>
> > Because that is the way the grading systems works. Those who put up
routes
> at this sort of level know this and know how to interpret such grades.
What kind of explanation is this
Let's
> face it, when someone puts up a new E9 onsight it'll be advertised as
such.
Let's try to make this as simple for you as we can.
The current E9 grades are for onsights.
But none of them have been done yet.
Are you still with me?
You should check the other posts here.
The ones where you contradict yourself are the best ones but if you take
your time and study them for long enough you might begin to get an idea.
Then again perhaps not.
Adrian Baugh
>don't seem to realise what the point is. I don't think that anyone has the
>right to tell anyone how to do anything. But i think adding constructive
>criticism about not killing yourself is a fair point.
How people climb is entirely up to them so long as it doesn't fuck the
crags up more than {necessary|is locally accepted} for other people.
Anyone who says otherwise is a gimp and needs to get out on the rock more.
Adrian.
--
I'll get me rock-shoes.
Mark Tolver
> Mark, Ask yourself how many times people have claimed that we're at the
> absolute limit of human capability.
> I agree with most of what you say but this bit is extremely arrogant.
> You should try to work on your imagination
>
> What you think, and what people might one day be capable of are very
> different.
>
I'm all too aware that I could be one in a long line of people throughout
history who have thought that the limits of human capability couldn't really
expand beyond the limits of the day. However, let's consider the purely
athletic element of human performance for a moment. Olympic athletes, for
example, have more or less reached the limits of human performance. When
records are broken in sprinting, they are broken by fractions of a second.
Not much room for significant progress there, unless we start genetically
engineering athletes. It is the professional training applied in most
mainstream sports that has pushed these athletes to the maximum extent of
their capabilities.
Climbing, as an athletic endeavour, has started to reach the point where
significant training is necessary to climb at the highest levels.
Admittedly, as modern training methods from more developed sports filter
into the climbing world, climbers - as athletes - will get better, but I
still think that those limits are beginning to be reached.
I think the hardest boulder problems are a good indication of how hard
routes can realistically get. Some problems have holds that barely exist,
apply those to the routes of the future and I think that gives you a
reasonable idea of the limits of climbing ability.
Mark
Matt Heason
Combine the strength of somebody like Malcolm Smith or Fred Nicole with the
athletic ability of someone like Johnny Dawes, the steady head of Leo
Houlding, the Stamina of Francois Petit, the small fingers of Lynn Hill....
and so on.
Let's say that each characteristic could be improved just a little bit, say
half a grade's worth (if such a thing is quantifiable).
Throw in technological breakthroughs in boots, chalk etc.
I think there is still a potentially long way to go!
Matt
Got to go.
See you tomorrow
;-)
Rob Harper
> How people climb is entirely up to them so long as it doesn't fuck the
> crags up more than {necessary|is locally accepted} for other people.
>
> Anyone who says otherwise is a gimp and needs to get out on the rock more.
Good point well argued.
Rob
Jon Read
> Let's try to make this as simple for you as we can.
>
> The current E9 grades are for onsights.
>
> But none of them have been done yet.
>
> Are you still with me?
I would argue that it's clear they aren't graded for onsights (how could
they?), but they get the E9whatever tag as an indicator of difficulty.
What's the problem?
Graham
G
Phaedrus <thrasy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a8i94$m1b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Let's try to make this as simple for you as we can.
>
> The current E9 grades are for onsights.
>
> But none of them have been done yet.
>
> Are you still with me?
>
>
pete theobald
Rob Harper wrote in message <38C7CDBF...@sheffield.ac.uk>...
The whole ethic of climbing is about a freedom to do what you want IMO. This
means that chipping holds etc. is up to you. But i'll help kick the shit out
of anyone who does it. an abstract concept but it's all about knowing the
risks.
If you chip a route the tech grade goes down (more holds)
but
the adjective grade goes up (violent activists)
hope i made a point somewhere in there
pete "dink dink" theobald
Graham
G
Jon Read <jm...@DELETETHISle.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38C841...@DELETETHISle.ac.uk...
> Phaedrus wrote:
> > Let's try to make this as simple for you as we can.
> >
> > The current E9 grades are for onsights.
> >
> > But none of them have been done yet.
> >
> > Are you still with me?
>
Peter Boyle
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Matt Heason wrote:
>
> Masters Edge isn't E9 or E10 because it is 'relatively' safe to onsight. I
> believe Fawcett isn't the only person to have onsighted it. And Indian Face
> isn't on Grit.
What ? and therefore it doesn't count, come on ?
Cheating is allowed on Grit therefore Grit climbers climb harder therefore
Cheating is allowed on Grit therefore ....
> So you have picked out two examples of onsight efforts -
> what of the head point routes that these guys have done? Dawes headpointed
> nealy all of his hard grit routes of the 80's, yet many of his routes are
> hailed as masterpieces. Surely they can't be if he did them in 'poor style'
(Think it was Gaia) but there was the route he only TR's the top few moves
once, and everyone since has hangdogged to death. Whose ascent counts the
most Matt? Dare you to tell us that your heart says the guy who worked it
most because he invested more effort in the route.
Personally I think guidebooks should list each of FA,FFA,FOS whenever they
weren't by the same person. Would create a rash of hard on-sights in the
Peak, and keep glory seekers going for a few years since there's now
already a route every four feet :).
And btw, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with
headpointing, except when it is treated on the same level as onsight.
If you are proud of headpointing a top route, congratulations you've got
more ability and guts than I ever will, and feel free to give a
speculative onsight grade.
Just make sure everyone knows it was headpointed and your "lead grade" is
for headpointing - gumbies like me could add at least 2 E grades to our
hardest "lead" by headpointing, but we choose not to. Why? Style.
Peter Boyle pbo...@physics.gla.ac.uk
Gary Smith
Mark Tolver wrote in message
>Olympic athletes, for
>example, have more or less reached the limits of human performance. When
>records are broken in sprinting, they are broken by fractions of a second.
>Not much room for significant progress there, unless we start genetically
>engineering athletes.
fractions to chip off.
Stu Littlefair
My
God
I can't believe I just spent twenty minutes reading this.
That means I'm sadder than all of you who wrote it. By the way, Yuji has
onsighted 8c, which is E9, so E9 has been onsighted. Getting more tenuous, a
few people have flashed V12/font 8a (Sharma, Loskot, Matt Birch) , which is
about 8c, so.......
falco
This means that chipping holds etc. is up to you. But i'll help kick the
shit out of anyone who does it.
see you at balmashanner then, matey
Adrian Baugh
>
>This means that chipping holds etc. is up to you. But i'll help kick the
>shit out of anyone who does it.
Anyone see that short story in the booklet with one of the rags last
month, about the fate of those who deface climbs?
Take heed.
Adrian.
Phaedrus
"pete theobald" <plthe...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> hope i made a point somewhere in there
Nope.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus
Jon Read <jm...@DELETETHISle.ac.uk> wrote:
> I would argue that it's clear they aren't graded for onsights (how
could they?),
You could argue that all you like. That doesn't change the fact that
"they" don't always make it clear. As for the how could they? part -
well for a start "they" could emphasise the fact that they toproped
something to death. "They could also get a bit less shirty when some
young turk does it by toproping it far less before leading.
I could argue that the very term "headpointing" is designed to disguise
the fact that something was toproped to death - but I think I'd be
wasting my time with you.
> but they get the E9whatever tag as an indicator of difficulty.
> What's the problem?
I refer the member to the answer I gave earlier.
Phaedrus
"Mark Tolver" <mark....@match-systems.com> wrote:
Mark, You talked a lot and said nothing worthwhile.
> let's consider the purely
> athletic element of human performance for a moment.
> Olympic athletes, for
> example, have more or less reached the limits of human performance.
> When records are broken in sprinting, they are broken by fractions of
> second.
So!
> Not much room for significant progress there,
Ah! you never mentioned "significant" in your earlier argument.
define significant.
> unless we start genetically
> engineering athletes.
What do you mean start? We've been doing it a long time.
> snip lots of rubbish
Mark - when people stop doing harder things I'll concede.
I' nor anyone else that I'm aware of is interested in this notion of
degree that you introduce. You clearly don't think hard enough before
you post.
Mrs Tolver - Mark must try harder.
Phaedrus
Peter Boyle <pbo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Wrote something that was spot on.
> Just make sure everyone knows it was headpointed and your "lead grade"
is
> for headpointing - gumbies like me could add at least 2 E grades to
our
> hardest "lead" by headpointing, but we choose not to. Why? Style.
Read it and weep Gritties - STYLE.
Matt Heason
my views...
I moved to Sheffield a couple of years ago. Whilst living here I have met a
few of the people that have been 'talked' about during this (and many other)
thread(s). I think that many of them (I did not say all of them) have a
great deal of integrity and honestly find it very difficult to grade the
routes that they climb. I spoke to Neil Bentley and Adrian Berry before
posting news of their recent new routes and neither one was happy at giving
the grade that they did.
However, I believe that most (again, I do not make the mistake of assuming
that all are included) grades are given for the onsight ascent because
anything less (given the current grading system) could be potentially
dangerous to future ascentionists. This applies to every grade category. I
have put up a couple of routes of my own and found it difficult to grade
them - at the end of the day I think that I probably overgraded rather than
undergraded because I would not like to be responsible for somebody having a
hard time because I had sandbagged them. That's my opinion.
As for people claiming that they have onsighted a certain grade when they
have actually headpointed it, I think that these cases are few and far
between - they certainly aren't the case with the two routes mentioned
above.
This is why some poeple (myself included) like the idea of a T grade that
can be changed to an E once a route has been onsighted.
Lastly, I think that if I was in the shoes of Seb Grieve and others (not all
from Sheffield remember), having inspired such a wave of activity on hard
grit routes after the video Had Grit, I would be a little worried when I
hear about people falling off the very routes that were featured in the
video. You and I may not think so, but many of the climbers featured in the
video are role models - whether they like it or not. And many of the routes
are now on ticklists across the country.
Hope this isn't too controversial or short sighted for anyone.
Cheers,
Matt
Graeme Peacock
Matt Heason wrote in message <8a8b6q$eik$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>...
>
>Masters Edge isn't E9 or E10 because it is 'relatively' safe to onsight. I
>believe Fawcett isn't the only person to have onsighted it. And Indian Face
>isn't on Grit.
Ah-ha - so that is the problem then - only Grit routes done in the last few
years are actually hard. I'm surprised by Matt's blinkered vision. Masters
Edge was one of the hardest routes of it's day. Indian Face is similar to a
Grit route because it is only one pitch. The type of rock is immaterial.
But you are right - Dawes "headpointed" (I really hate that word, made up to
serve the Egos of some Sheffield lads) Indian Face, but as with Redpointing,
there are different styles of headpointing - he had minimal practice and
couldn't string it together on a TR. On the other hand, some routes are
beaten into submission, and get the same credit.
I think someone should mention Strawberries (Tremadog for those who's
climbing has never extended further than a few miles from Sheffield - Arnaud
knows Tremadog!). At the time, the climbing press did not accredit Fawcets
first ascent because he had practised it. You could hardly call it
"headpointing" because it is a big crack-line (how can you headpoint a
well-protected route?) but the style of ascent was the same as any of these
new Grit routes.
SNIP
>>
>> Think how many brilliant routes there are around the world, plus all the
>> lines waiting to be done. Can you really afford the time to spend days
>> and weeks on just one route?
>>
>>
>
>Personal choice?
>There ain't exactly many new lines waiting to be done within an hour's
drive
>of Sheffield....
>Matt
>
I think this is one of the problems - I would guess that there are few bits
of rock in the UK, particularly accesible ones, that haven't had someone
climbing on them. So, Ben Moon did the Yoghurt Arete a few years ago, but
he isn't credited with the first ascent. This is because the history and
ethics of UK climbing credit the first lead as the first ascent. There are
lots of other "unclimbed" lines which have already been done on a top-rope,
and for the near future, this is where most of the hard routes are going to
come from. This is why John Dunnes route in the Mourne's really stands out
as being something genuinely new, but also why it is controversial - because
no-one else has tried it.
Just some thought,
Graeme
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
Contradictory Cockwash.
Matt - you couldn't form a considered opinion if you had a mould.
Graeme Peacock
Matt Heason wrote in message <8a8ecl$euo$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>...
>> Therefore, how many E9/E10s are there?
>>
>> None.
>>
>
>So use another grading system.
>
>Because that is the way the grading systems works. Those who put up routes
>at this sort of level know this and know how to interpret such grades.
Let's
>face it, when someone puts up a new E9 onsight it'll be advertised as such.
>There won;t be any doubt. The cludy are comes around E6/7/8 where routes
may
>be put up without trying them first. You'll probably find that the first
>ascencionist will have described the style of ascent somewhere. If they
awnt
>to lie then that's a whole different ball game.
>
An important point for keeping history sections in guidebooks (AJ and Mick
take note!). All the information about the style of ascent, and for the
infrequently repeated routes, the style of any repeats is generally included
in the history of guidebooks. This is important information, particularly
for potential suitors, as is, for example, information on who graded it, and
what type of routes (s)he has graded in the past. The current grading
system does everything we are asking of it, so long as you look at the
history of the route.
Graeme
Graeme Peacock
Mark Tolver wrote in message <8a8i1k$ccl$1...@supernews.com>...
>Some problems have holds that barely exist,
>apply those to the routes of the future and I think that gives you a
>reasonable idea of the limits of climbing ability.
>
>Mark
>
"...gain purchase on the merest nubbin of rock, barely visible and merely a
half-inch in total length. With the greatest of effort, rubbers will stick
to the smallest of footholds, barely more than ripples created geological
timescales ago in the rock you are now ascending..."
The kind of thing which would have described hard routes mid last century.
Methinks you are being a bit on the shortsided side...
Graeme
Matt Heason
> >
> >Masters Edge isn't E9 or E10 because it is 'relatively' safe to onsight.
I
> >believe Fawcett isn't the only person to have onsighted it. And Indian
Face
> >isn't on Grit.
>
> Ah-ha - so that is the problem then - only Grit routes done in the last
few
> years are actually hard. I'm surprised by Matt's blinkered vision.
Masters
> Edge was one of the hardest routes of it's day.
I only said this because I felt that the original attack was on Sheffield
climber climbing in the Peak. Please don't think that I am that narrow
minded - I was just trying to contain the discussion to some degree!
Indian Face is similar to a
> Grit route because it is only one pitch. The type of rock is immaterial.
> But you are right - Dawes "headpointed" (I really hate that word, made up
to
> serve the Egos of some Sheffield lads
What do you base that statement on?
) Indian Face, but as with Redpointing,
> there are different styles of headpointing - he had minimal practice and
> couldn't string it together on a TR. On the other hand, some routes are
> beaten into submission, and get the same credit.
>
> I think someone should mention Strawberries (Tremadog for those who's
> climbing has never extended further than a few miles from Sheffield -
Arnaud
> knows Tremadog!).
For 19 years I lived in a village called Nantmor - check your maps and
you'll see that it is 4.5 miles from Tremadog - Iused to drive past it on
the way to school twice a day!
At the time, the climbing press did not accredit Fawcets
> first ascent because he had practised it. You could hardly call it
> "headpointing" because it is a big crack-line (how can you headpoint a
> well-protected route?) but the style of ascent was the same as any of
these
> new Grit routes.
Red pointing / head pointing - whatever the term used it is based on the
fact that the first ascent was done after top roping it first.
Obviously. A very significant reason that routes in the Peak get a lot of
attention is because 20million people live within an hour or so's drive of
them. Mourne mountains are in the middle of nowhere so they are obviously
going to get less traffic and hence less 'attention'. Still an awesome
looking route though
Matt
Sean
Phaedrus wrote in message ...
> > Fair enough. My mistake.
>
> Halefuckinlujah
Arse biscuits ya fuckin ignoramus.
Sean
x
Matt Heason
Where's the contradiction?
Sean
Phaedrus wrote in message ...
> Mark, You talked a lot and said nothing worthwhile.
Phaedrus, you are both pedantic and arrogant.
> > unless we start genetically
> > engineering athletes.
> What do you mean start? We've been doing it a long time.
This is big news isn't it? Are you saying that some of our modern athletes
are the result of unpublished (and highly illegal) human embryo
experimentation. Or are you merely talking about a program of selective
breeding (used to be called 'eugenics' when applied to humans, didn't it?)
thats been going on for generations without public knowledge.
Or, for someone who says things like..
> > snip lots of rubbish
..and..
> You clearly don't think hard enough before
> you post.
..are you talking a lot of arse?
Sean
x
Phaedrus
"Sean" <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Phaedrus, you are both pedantic and arrogant.
Perhaps but so far no-one this includes you Sean has given a good answer
to my arguments.
> This is big news isn't it? Are you saying that some of our modern
athletes
> are the result of unpublished (and highly illegal) human embryo
> experimentation.
Nope
Nothing as organised or as sinister I'm happy to say.
I'm saying that we recognise natural selection.
Phaedrus
"Sean" <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Arse biscuits ya fuckin ignoramus.
>
> Sean
Very good.
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> Where's the contradiction?
Look back the posts.
Matt Heason
Phaedrus <thrasy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8aancs$8ee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3y4y4.4926$za2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> "Sean" <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Phaedrus, you are both pedantic and arrogant.
>
> Perhaps but so far no-one this includes you Sean has given a good answer
> to my arguments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is big news isn't it? Are you saying that some of our modern
> athletes
> > are the result of unpublished (and highly illegal) human embryo
> > experimentation.
>
> Nope
>
> Nothing as organised or as sinister I'm happy to say.
>
> I'm saying that we recognise natural selection.
>
Mark Tolver
Gary Smith <ga...@ziegra.co.uk> wrote in message
news:952624927.23895.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Climbing is only at the 'Bannister' stage Mark there's still many more
> fractions to chip off.
>
Mark
Mark Tolver
> Ah! you never mentioned "significant" in your earlier argument.
> define significant.
>
Okay. I can't honestly see an English technical grade harder than 8a ever
being created. Similarly with sport routes, we might reach F10 something or
other but it's unlikely to get any further than that.
> > unless we start genetically
> > engineering athletes.
>
> What do you mean start? We've been doing it a long time.
>
Eh! Would you like to expand on that somewhat daft assertion?
>
> Mrs Tolver - Mark must try harder.
>
I'm trying Phaedrus, but then, so are you. Very.
Mark
Adrian Japp
systems.com> writes
>I think the hardest boulder problems are a good indication of how hard
>routes can realistically get. Some problems have holds that barely exist,
>apply those to the routes of the future and I think that gives you a
>reasonable idea of the limits of climbing ability.
You've watched Hard Grit one too many times. ;-)
:-P
BTW, how's yer painting coming along?
--
Adrian Japp
a...@japp.co.uk
www.japp.co.uk
Sean
Phaedrus wrote in message ...
> > Phaedrus, you are both pedantic and arrogant.
> Perhaps but so far no-one this includes you Sean has given a good answer
> to my arguments.
Thats because I mostly agree with your arguments, I was just having a go at
you personally.
> > This is big news isn't it? Are you saying that some of our
> > modern athletes are the result of unpublished (and highly illegal)
> > human embryo experimentation.
> Nothing as organised or as sinister I'm happy to say.
> I'm saying that we recognise natural selection.
If natural selection is genetic engineering, then nothing living is not
genetically engineered, so the term 'genetically engineered' is redundant
and there really is no GM debate.
Have you told Monsanto's pr department about this?
They may be willing to pay you for it.
Sean
x
Matt Schofield
>
> If natural selection is genetic engineering, then nothing living is not
> genetically engineered, so the term 'genetically engineered' is redundant
> and there really is no GM debate.
Sometimes I feel that my climbing shoes have become biologically
attached to my feet.
Terar
Matt Schofield
--
Return email address junked
Mark Tolver
news:20000309143543...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> Oh
> My
> God
>
> I can't believe I just spent twenty minutes reading this.
>
> That means I'm sadder than all of you who wrote it.
Ah! You've just discovered the time-sucking effects of this ng then. Yer'll
be screwed if your reading it at work.
>By the way, Yuji has onsighted 8c, which is E9, so E9 has been onsighted.
Getting more tenuous, a
> few people have flashed V12/font 8a (Sharma, Loskot, Matt Birch) , which
is
> about 8c, so.......
You know what you were saying earlier about being sadder than everyone
else... I think you might have just confirmed it, anorak boy.
Mark
Mark Tolver
Adrian Japp <aj...@spectrumlabels.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m+k1PDAD...@spectrumlabels.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8a8i1k$ccl$1...@supernews.com>, Mark Tolver <mark.tolver@match-
>
> BTW, how's yer painting coming along?
Dunno. Not heard anything recently. I'll have to make enquiries.
Mark
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> Which are what?
Read the fuckin posts.
Phaedrus
"Sean" <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Thats because I mostly agree with your arguments, I was just having a
go at
> you personally.
That's OK then.
The beauty of this forum.
I won't lose any sleep over somebody having a go at me here.
> If natural selection is genetic engineering, then nothing living is
not
> genetically engineered, so the term 'genetically engineered' is
redundant
> and there really is no GM debate.
Semantics again. I could argue that we're talking about degrees of
application for language, in relation to science.
This isn't the place for such a debate but if you take a kind of Kuhnian
approach to scientific method then everything from basic social
organisation to GM trials is in - at least as far as the term "genetic
engineering" is concerned.
> Have you told Monsanto's pr department about this?
> They may be willing to pay you for it.
Nah - I don't need the money.
Phaedrus
"Mark Tolver" <mark....@match-systems.com> wrote:
> Phaedrus <thrasy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8aaenb$2vi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Mark Tolver" <mark....@match-systems.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark, You talked a lot and said nothing worthwhile.
> Hmm... If that's the case, you wouldn't bother trying to argue the
points.
>
> > Ah! you never mentioned "significant" in your earlier argument.
> > define significant.
> >
> Okay. I can't honestly see an English technical grade harder than 8a
ever
> being created.
These are only opinions Mark and I just think you're being very
shortsighted. If you're right then we're at a very historically
significant stage.
Similarly with sport routes, we might reach F10
something or
> > What do you mean start? We've been doing it a long time.
> >
> Eh! Would you like to expand on that somewhat daft assertion?
You're right it is a somewhat daft assertion. However it isn't any
dafter than the notion that we're suddenly going to stop making any
forward development as a species.
> I'm trying Phaedrus, but then, so are you. Very.
That's what I'm here for.
Alastair Downie
Mark Tolver wrote:
> Okay. I can't honestly see an English technical grade harder than 8a ever
> being created.
I bet folk said that about 7a also. Nonsense. No matter what the hardest
move ever done is, there's always someone who'll be able to do something
just a little harder. I guess at that kind of level, moves are graded not
by how hard they feel, but according to how many other people can do them.
The next hardest move will get the next grade, even if it's only a tiny
increment harder than the one before, as long as it's enough to stop all
the competitors.
I look forward to the next gear revolution (sticky rubber thimbles with
skyhooks), or to the day when someone who's 7ft tall puts up a route with
a dyno that's too long for any of the current hard-team. He could grade it
E15 8a, and none of the bastards would be able to argue with him until
they'd climbed the route.
See ya,
al
=======================
nope. I'm off! TAKE!!!
=======================
Matt Heason
arguments. The thread seems to be branching off all over the place!
And there's no need to resort to obscenities.
Matt
Phaedrus
"Matt Heason" <ma...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer it (as I am on my employers time) if you were to sum up
your
> arguments.
Tuff
Matt Heason
Have a good weekend.
Phaedrus <thrasy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ab2ug$guq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Adrian Japp
<mat...@sco.deletethisbit.com> writes
>Sometimes I feel that my climbing shoes have become biologically
>attached to my feet.
You need to try some of that athlete's foot spray from Boots.
;-)
Mick Ryan
>
> Gary Smith <ga...@ziegra.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:952624927.23895.0...@news.demon.co.uk..
> >
> > fractions to chip off.
> >
> Agreed. But I still think it's only fractions rather than minutes.
>
> Mark
No it's minutes Mark, I'm sure of it. Having seen some amazing stunts - single dynamic moves on
micro-edges, on boulders. It will be a great leap forward - once these are strung together, maybe on
a rope, high off the ground, above marginal gear. I suppose that Dawes project - Wizard Ridge is
what I'm on about it - unless he was bullshitting about the type of moves and difficulty.
Mick
--
The bouldering video: WEST COAST PIMP
http://www.rockfax.com/wcp/wcp.html
________________________
ALL ABOUT BISHOP BOULDERING:
http://www.rockfax.com/bishop_bouldering/index.html
________________________
Mick Ryan, Rockfax Guidebooks
http://www.rockfax.com
"owned by climbers, run by climbers, for climbers"
_____________________
find us at:
The Sierra Mountain Center,
174 West Line Street,
Bishop,
CA 93514
tel: 760-872-9136
Russ Walling
>
> In article <8a8jh8$37v$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
> "pete theobald" <plthe...@iname.com> wrote:
<<snip of stuff I missed but looked good by 34 different writers>>
Hi all,
Sun is shining, the boulders are warm, and numerous crags await.
Oh, by the way, headpointing is for PUFFS (tm)
have a nice day,
Russ
--
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Todays Auctions on Ebay:
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItemsLinkButtons&userid=fish...@aol.com
Visit our www site: http://www.FishProducts.com
Bishop Bouldering @ http://www.FishProducts.com/powerandrubber
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Mick Ryan
>
> Phaedrus wrote:
> >
> > In article <8a8jh8$37v$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
> > "pete theobald" <plthe...@iname.com> wrote:
> <<snip of stuff I missed but looked good by 34 different writers>>
>
> Hi all,
> Sun is shining, the boulders are warm, and numerous crags await.
> Oh, by the way, headpointing is for PUFFS (tm)
> have a nice day,
> Russ
That's right - Dawes, Bentley, Grieve, Dunne are all notorious gender benders - Well at least I know
three out of the four I just mentioned definately are. The fourth is just curious.
Mick
Mark Tolver
>
> You're right it is a somewhat daft assertion. However it isn't any
> dafter than the notion that we're suddenly going to stop making any
> forward development as a species.
>
back where some evolutionary theorist suggested that the human species had
more or less reached it's evolutionary limit. Although Phaedrus, it makes me
weep to think you might be an example of the pinnacle of human evolution.
Adrian Baugh
>> Oh, by the way, headpointing is for PUFFS (tm)
>> have a nice day,
>> Russ
>
>That's right - Dawes, Bentley, Grieve, Dunne are all notorious gender
>benders - Well at least I know three out of the four I just mentioned
>definately are. The fourth is just curious.
Nowt new there. Menlove Edwards, er, allegedly lived up to his name..
Does it matter?
Adrian.
Stu Littlefair
>
>--
>Phaedrus
>
If style is so important to you, why do you fill newsgroups with unsightly,
unstylish, poorly formulated arguments.
You could be out onsighting hard routes, n'est pas. Criticise someone elses
style when you manage to better their ascent. Otherwise, back off.
Stu
Sean
Adrian Japp wrote in message ...
> >Sometimes I feel that my climbing shoes have become biologically
> >attached to my feet.
>
> You need to try some of that athlete's foot spray from Boots.
Or wooly socks. Red ones for preference. ;o)
Sean
x
Sean
Phaedrus wrote in message ...
> That's OK then.
> The beauty of this forum.
> I won't lose any sleep over somebody having a go at me here.
Thought not, you didn't strike me as the sensitive type.
> Semantics again. I could argue that we're talking about degrees of
> application for language, in relation to science.
>
> This isn't the place for such a debate
That it aint.
> but if you take a kind of Kuhnian
> approach to scientific method
I haven't the foggiest what that bit means. Can you suggest a book, or
maybe a web page somewhere that would enlighten a simple rigger ? If its
heavy and academic, I cant be arsed, but if theres summat like a 'Brief
History of Time' or a 'Tao of Physics' etc out there, I may even read it. I
like a bit of pop philosophy for bed-time reading.
> > Have you told Monsanto's pr department about this?
> > They may be willing to pay you for it.
> Nah - I don't need the money.
Lucky bugger. :o)
Sean
x
Bob Wightman
<g.b.p...@bham.ac.uk> writes
>
>Matt Heason wrote in message <8a8b6q$eik$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>...
>>
>>Masters Edge isn't E9 or E10 because it is 'relatively' safe to onsight. I
>>believe Fawcett isn't the only person to have onsighted it. And Indian Face
>>isn't on Grit.
>
>Ah-ha - so that is the problem then - only Grit routes done in the last few
>years are actually hard. I'm surprised by Matt's blinkered vision. Masters
>Edge was one of the hardest routes of it's day. Indian Face is similar to a
>Grit route because it is only one pitch. The type of rock is immaterial.
>But you are right - Dawes "headpointed" (I really hate that word, made up to
>serve the Egos of some Sheffield lads) Indian Face, but as with Redpointing,
>there are different styles of headpointing - he had minimal practice and
>couldn't string it together on a TR. On the other hand, some routes are
>beaten into submission, and get the same credit.
Actually the term was coined by Nick Dixon once of Cleveland now of N
Wales.
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Wightman
Phaedrus
> I haven't the foggiest what that bit means. Can you suggest a book,
Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn
isn't too heavy.
Phaedrus
stuartli...@aol.comnospam (Stu Littlefair) wrote:
> If style is so important to you, why do you fill newsgroups with
unsightly,
> unstylish, poorly formulated arguments.
Examples?
> Criticise someone elses style when you manage to better their ascent.
> Otherwise, back off.
Every time I climb something I do it in better style than headpointing.
Every route that I do is new to me. OK I don't climb high grades but
I have been known to put a lot of effort in.
I've no desire to put up new routes but..and here's the rub - I don't
toprope routes.
I know of at least one place where I could put up possibly three or four
new routes. However I'd need to toprope them as I'm not good enough or
bold enough to climb them from the ground up. As a consequence that bit
of quarried rock stays as it is until somebody with no imagination or
hopefully somebody with a bit of style comes along and clims it.
falco
doing in at work today? does it mean the network is getting fixed and i'll
get no more licence messages?!
BTW do i look forStructure of Scientific Revolutions under Kuhn T?
falco
to late, mate - me, the ryobi, janet and michelle bolted chipped toproped
then headpointed the routes (using all the available in-situ pro) Young
Jamie was holding the ropes - unfortunately we forgot to get the ascent
video-d as the sheffield team were all away training