/ Bristish national team of young alpinists?
If such a procedure/structure exists at the national level, who is in charge?
Thanks for all info and details.
Yes I did. No info. The closest thing I found was the Int'l meets. But that's not what I'm speaking about,
Or indeed France.
Personally I think that most university mountaineering clubs run trips to the alps. The usually get new members to do the coville course before they join their own trip. Has the OP looked at this?
I sincerely hope not.
In NZ a group of motivated people just got together and organised them selves and a few others as Mentors and then asked for applications.
I think you'll find that mostly people who want to become alpinists just decide this for themselves then go and do it... state intervention is hardly considered necessary :-)
The Johnathan Conville courses are probably the closest thing to this, aren't they?
Presumably, alpinism is a largely self-selecting activity - imagine most young people's reaction to a hand on their shoulder and a voice asking 'how do you fancy coming to climb marginal routes in places you've never heard of with minimal food and less sleep, for little material gain or even recognition outside of a small group of peers?'
> The Johnathan Conville courses are probably the closest thing to this, aren't they?
> Presumably, alpinism is a largely self-selecting activity - imagine most young people's reaction to a hand on their shoulder and a voice asking 'how do you fancy coming to climb marginal routes in places you've never heard of with minimal food and less sleep, for little material gain or even recognition outside of a small group of peers?'
No, your vaguely creepy but generally accurate scenario is missing the point of the 'team' thing. It's for young climbers who already have experience, are already keen alpinists, but are being given help to get better. It's not a training course for beginners.
As for Bruce's 'state intervention' I think the US and NZ programs show that it's an organic and voluntary thing that comes from the proletariat themselves, not a diktat from on high (sigh of disappointment from BMC HQ).
I know it's not in keeping with the bumbling amateur ethos of the British climbing culture, where being seen to make an effort to become your best is sneered at, but if done right it could be a good thing. I wouldn't trust British authorities to do it right though.
Of course alpine climbing is something that individuals will just go do of their own accord but for those who really want to push it then that should be encouraged rather than shunned.
> I think you'll find that mostly people who want to become alpinists just decide this for themselves then go and do it... state intervention is hardly considered necessary :-)
Come on Bruce. You more than anyone should have heard of the Groupe d'Excellence CAF...
Ask any Frenchman/woman that and they wouldn't even understand why you're asking!
I think your're right but in fact this "team" exists in some sense in the form of the Alpine Club, that has both elite and non-elite members who exchange ideas etc. and offer funding for expeditions and so on.
It's left me concerned that it hints at bringing a comptitive element to alpinism which I'm not comfortable with - especially for youngsters.
The word "team" left me a bit concerned about that too.
> Ask any Frenchman/woman that and they wouldn't even understand why you're asking!
Quite possibly. I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for this - just that I don't currently see it. So what is it? Just 'cos the French do it isn't enough for me.
The idea would be to give young alpinists with heaps of potential the opportunity to build on their skills with the aid of an experienced climber, and climb some amazing routes at the same time. I don't see how anybody could be against this.
No, I agree, the elitism over here is sickening - there has to be an element of competition in a sport to give it any value - I mean, what's the point of doing anything if you're not winning at it?! I mentioned the French in the first place as the OP's personal website in his profile is camptocamp and I'd therefore imagine he's probably French. Just a guess, of course.
> The idea would be to give young alpinists with heaps of potential the opportunity to build on their skills with the aid of an experienced climber, and climb some amazing routes at the same time. I don't see how anybody could be against this.
But why just for an elite 'national' squad? Surely your argument applies equally well for any aspiring alpinist, Conville graduate onwards?
What... Like the British Mountain Guide scheme?
In reply to the OP, many of us would find the idea of any British national team associated with climbing a complete anathema... thus the mixed reaction to the failure of climbing to gain initial Olympic recognition status. Similarly the mixed reaction to the Piolet D'Or awards.
Climbing IMHO should be intrinsically oriented in terms of recognition and rewards.
Oh sorry - the OP was about an elite squad.
So this programme - how does it work? Who pays for it? The applicant? You can pay for training now without some new 'programme'. Or do you mean a sort of advanced Conville course? But that's funded (partly) by the guy's parents with a very specific purpose. Still confused.
I find the connotations of nationalism and competition and this particular brand of elitism objectionable. I can just about stomach it in in indoor competition climbing (as long as my BMC subscription is not funding it), but in proper climbing it is totally out of place and not in the spirit of mountaineering. I applaud anyone of any nationality who is psyched enough to get out there and "have it". Leave this sort of nonsense to other countries.
Err, well I haven't actually, even if I was a member once for the hut reduction. It would be a rather French approach to things though... bureaucracy rules, OK?
In reality the results of Olympic games and such like do seem to be largely down to budget though, but I don't think this is anything to encourage. Someone above mentioned the "bumbling amateur" ethic, in a derogatory way, but I don't think it's such a bad way of living. Success isn't everything :-)
I think you are generalising here, not all French people think like this, quite a few, especially those who push their way into the committees of associations, local government, government etc. may do but there are plenty who don't.. For every Herzog there's a Desmaison, thank goodness.
> The idea would be to give young alpinists with heaps of potential the opportunity to build on their skills with the aid of an experienced climber, and climb some amazing routes at the same time.
What stops them from doing this already with their usual partner?
I can, in fact I can't see anything in favour of it.
> Err, well I haven't actually, even if I was a member once for the hut reduction. It would be a rather Fr Someone above mentioned the "bumbling amateur" ethic, in a derogatory way, but I don't think it's such a bad way of living. Success isn't everything :-)
Well said, Captain Scott! How many others you going to take down with you this time?
It was tongue-in-cheek derogatory, but yes, slightly derogatory. The 'amateur' bit is fine and very good, IMO better than many 'professionals' - but the 'bumbling' bit not so much. Around the crag it might not matter so much but in the Alps and elsewhere it brings people unstuck year after year. Incompetence is nothing to be proud of and the line between easygoing bumbling and dangerous ineptitude can be crossed far too easily. Ask the rangers on Denali or those who work in Antarctica or the Alps about the 'bumbling Brits'. Admiration only goes so far, then they become a menace, to themselves and others.
Heaven forbid anyone be seen to make an effort to get better, eh? I've seen 'amateurism' turn nasty and sneering at those who seek a bit more, at no loss to the amateurs, merely a difference in opinion and approach. Like the time when training was 'cheating'. Thank dog those times are gone.
There's nothing stopping anyone going about their own business in alpine climbing completely ignoring any such 'team' and just carrying on as always. Aversion to such elitism or teams or squads or whatever is largely an irrational personal and cultural preference and is no more valid to force on anyone else than plenty of other things people argue about on here. No one is proposing a team of fluro-clad heroes posing for aerial footage. There's plenty of room on the spectrum between Jean Marc Boivin or Ueli Steck and a middle-aged bloke down the crag doing Diffs with his mates.
My main concern would be if the creation, presence and operation of such a 'team' did in fact impact on those who want nothing to do with it. If evidence proved that was the case then I don't think it would be in the interests of climbing, or the climbing community in general.
Encouraging and supporting actual alpinism, at an increasing standard of excellence, rather than passively allowing (and in doing so, encouraging) the proliferation of guided, fixed and blogged celebrity snow plods is to me a positive step. Action, not reaction.
> <SNIP> Aversion to such elitism or teams or squads or whatever is largely an irrational personal and cultural preference and is no more valid to force on anyone else than plenty of other things people argue about on here.
It not that simple. Apart from that knee-jerk aversion, a 'national elite' squad inevitably involves (or ends up involving) the national body for the sport (else the 'national' bit is laughable), then the government (in the chase for vote-winning 'national honours') and ends up skewing funding and other priorities. That affects everyone - generally adversely. No, I'm not saying it'd be the end of climbing as we know it, but it does encourage a negative (IMO) trend. Now... If you get rid of the 'national' and 'elite' bit and do something which encourages better, safer alpinism across the whole range of players, then I'm all for it. But what?
The term "bumbling amateur" is one I copy from others, I don't really think amateurs have to be bumbling - some of the best mountaineers in history were amateurs and they didn't bumble all the time.
As for the dangers involved, there have been numerous accidents in the Alps involving professionally guided parties and many amateurs went though their entire life without an accident, I think self teaching can produce just as much competence as formal learning, and in many ways a higher level of self awareness and awareness of danger plus the humility to turn back - which I think is the key skill required for survival in big mountains.
Coming back to the subject though it seems to me that the most accomplished alpinists have reached their level and broken new ground by their own efforts: which "experts" could teach people to innovate? As the old joke goes, "Those who can, do. Those who can't do teach others to do."
> Well said, Captain Scott! >>
Too much Roland Huntford?!
I'd object to a 'national team' of young alpinists, though largely because I'm too old, fat and scared to be part of it.
What Damo said
A problem, I think, and as has been touched on above, is that there isn't really a clear-cut point to alpinism beyond the satisfaction of doing it. Being first up something is probably regarded as an achievement, but otherwise how do you measure it, and those doing it? Speed? Degree of difficulty? Then, at what point do you introduce concepts like ethics, and whose ethics should they be? All these things should be considered by the young bucks who'd be in line for making up any team, but I think they'd have to make up their own minds as they go along
> I'd object to a 'national team' of young alpinists, though largely because I'm too old, fat and scared to be part of it.
Easy. The UIAA publishes the list of unclimbed mountains down to 6500m that have a prominence of at least 8%, and says 'go for it'. No fixed ropes, no porters above base camp, only alpine-style allowed, one team per route per season, weighted points system for altitude/tech/speed, fines and lost points for failure to remove rubbish, lost digits, lies and deaths. There's a B-List of unclimbed routes on previously climbed mountains that attract a 25% points reduction.
Teams have 2014 for selection then begin in 2015, go through to end of 2019 and the team with the most points wins the 2020 Vision d'Extrem Super Piolet d'Oh award of individually engraved curved-shaft ice axes made of golden cheese, a book deal with Vertebrate, a jury seat at Banff and a presenter's gig at Kendal. Losers have to moderate the Rocktalk forum for one year.
Excellent! Please tell me that's not a typo!
Such a nifty system already exists, it's called going climbing with your mates :-)
Or cannon fodder, as it's often known...
No, I think you have to see that in the spirit of snatching a big unclimbed prize. Climbing things that have already been climbed just doesn't generate the same (or any?) competitiveness.
They may have been a factor for those involved, but I'd wager that just doing the route was more important to climbers - the nationalism was probably more something for the watching masses to get excited about
Have you read the accounts of the first ascent of Annapurna or K2? Nationalism seemed have played something more than a minor role! As for Everest the fuss about the relative merits of Hilary or Tensing sold quite a few miles of newsprint too. Things have improved since though.... apparently.
Elsewhere on the site
Last year, Finn McCann wrote an article about climbing El Capitan with his terminally ill father Seamus, who had been... Read more
The B.D.V. — short for Black Diamond Vertical — jacket and pants are Black Diamond’s most versatile climbing... Read more
This streamlined, midweight thermal layer has an incredibly speedy moisture wicking ability and dries ultra fast if it gets... Read more
In tonight's Friday Night Video, we see Alex Honnold soloing Heaven 5.12d in Yosemite Valley. The route starts 3000ft above the... Read more
October 21, 2014 – Textile Exchange, a global nonprofit dedicated to sustainability in the apparel and textile industry,... Read more