This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Its on the agenda for the next Peak Area meeting. My guess is most of us will fall into two camps on this one. Sport climbers and indoor enthusiasts who will be in favour of climbing comp's generally and Trad' types that aren´t.
In reply to redsulike: I'd be happy for it to be an Olympic sport
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=41609
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=41609
In reply to redsulike: What about people who climb trad, sport, boulder and indoors as well. Would you like to tell me what to think please
In reply to redsulike:
Been meaning to start a thread on this, but you've beaten me to it
The question I want to ask is why not ?
The BMC commissioned this article http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3172 in the hope of getting people talking.
And whilst it's a fine piece of journalism, it doesn't give me any clues as to why some people are so opposed to having climbing in the olympics. What I wanted to hear was a good old fashioned rant, thin end of the wedge stuff, if we tolerate this then Stanage will be next....
My thoughts at the moment are that if the BMC says no, it has to be honest and withdraw from competitions altogether and let someone else do the job properly.
But please, can I ask people not to start arguing the climbing comps are boring or that only proper sports should be in the olympics. You may be right (but it's pretty subjective) but it has absolutely no relevance to this issue. That's a matter for the IOC to decide, not the BMC
Been meaning to start a thread on this, but you've beaten me to it
The question I want to ask is why not ?
The BMC commissioned this article http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3172 in the hope of getting people talking.
And whilst it's a fine piece of journalism, it doesn't give me any clues as to why some people are so opposed to having climbing in the olympics. What I wanted to hear was a good old fashioned rant, thin end of the wedge stuff, if we tolerate this then Stanage will be next....
My thoughts at the moment are that if the BMC says no, it has to be honest and withdraw from competitions altogether and let someone else do the job properly.
But please, can I ask people not to start arguing the climbing comps are boring or that only proper sports should be in the olympics. You may be right (but it's pretty subjective) but it has absolutely no relevance to this issue. That's a matter for the IOC to decide, not the BMC
In reply to redsulike:
What on earth has this two camps rubbish got to do with anything? I'm a trad and sport climber, that personally has no interest in comps or their results. That however doesn't mean I disagree with them, or would like to see others that benefit from them have that taken away from them.
You seem against it, why? Is your view of the world really as "them and us" as it appears from your (previous) posts?
What on earth has this two camps rubbish got to do with anything? I'm a trad and sport climber, that personally has no interest in comps or their results. That however doesn't mean I disagree with them, or would like to see others that benefit from them have that taken away from them.
You seem against it, why? Is your view of the world really as "them and us" as it appears from your (previous) posts?
In reply to The Climbing Works:
The only people I've heard suggesting that climbing shouldn't be an olympic sport are those who are worried that competition drug testing would be more common and that they'd have to worry about how much er 'cough medicine' they'd been taking
The only people I've heard suggesting that climbing shouldn't be an olympic sport are those who are worried that competition drug testing would be more common and that they'd have to worry about how much er 'cough medicine' they'd been taking
In reply to Reach>Talent: Which to me seems a meaningless thing to worry about. The only people that will get tested will be competitors.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Well surprisingly enough you are not going to hear me (mr trad) arguing against it. On the contrary I think it is down to the BMC to make it clear how far away from real rock climbing indoor climbing, particularly competions, really are.
People like Mick Ryan argue with me about the deliterious effect that starting indoors has on the mass of grass roots climbers in the UK, thread after thread on here has people saying that they lead 6b indoors, can we reccomend some good well protected V Diffs for them to try outdoor climbing on. Yet in the past people started on leading V Diff outdoors and very quickly moved up the grades. OK the 'stars' are good at both, but the core of UK climbing has not moved up a grade since I started in the 1960's, I suspect that the median is still only VS.
Attract them into comps and the Olympics by all means, but if it causes a huge upsurge in outdoor climbing then the UK just doesn't have enough rock available to encompasse them all. Let the BMC promote comps and climbing indoors.
People like Mick Ryan argue with me about the deliterious effect that starting indoors has on the mass of grass roots climbers in the UK, thread after thread on here has people saying that they lead 6b indoors, can we reccomend some good well protected V Diffs for them to try outdoor climbing on. Yet in the past people started on leading V Diff outdoors and very quickly moved up the grades. OK the 'stars' are good at both, but the core of UK climbing has not moved up a grade since I started in the 1960's, I suspect that the median is still only VS.
Attract them into comps and the Olympics by all means, but if it causes a huge upsurge in outdoor climbing then the UK just doesn't have enough rock available to encompasse them all. Let the BMC promote comps and climbing indoors.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Ian McNaught Davis tried to make this point at the AGM - stating that the IOC bans certain drugs that many considered essential for high altitude mountaineering.
To which the obvious question is "So what"? The IOC bans lots of drugs that have perfectly valid medical uses - most obviously EPO and it's many variants.
But if want to compete in the Olympics you will have to make many sacrifices, and top-class boulderer might just have to pass on that invite to Everest expedition this year.....
Ian McNaught Davis tried to make this point at the AGM - stating that the IOC bans certain drugs that many considered essential for high altitude mountaineering.
To which the obvious question is "So what"? The IOC bans lots of drugs that have perfectly valid medical uses - most obviously EPO and it's many variants.
But if want to compete in the Olympics you will have to make many sacrifices, and top-class boulderer might just have to pass on that invite to Everest expedition this year.....
In reply to Chris the Tall: The IOC have Therapeutic Use Exemption for medicinal use of drugs.
In reply to The Climbing Works: What about my Rastafarian heritage?
In reply to Robertostallioni: Currently the IFSC only stipulate testing the winners of World Cups and the Out of Competition Testing Pool consists of the top ranked climbers.
So you might be safe for a bit
So you might be safe for a bit
In reply to Al Evans:
Do you mean bolted rock Al or just 'rock'? Because the uk has plenty of rock, huge swathes of it away from the sacrificial anodes of the eastern peak and southern sandstone that are practically deserted of a nice weekend. There's more than enough to cope with any realistic surge in popularity post Olympics.
jk
> Attract them into comps and the Olympics by all means, but if it causes a huge upsurge in outdoor climbing then the UK just doesn't have enough rock available to encompasse them all. Let the BMC promote comps and climbing indoors.
Do you mean bolted rock Al or just 'rock'? Because the uk has plenty of rock, huge swathes of it away from the sacrificial anodes of the eastern peak and southern sandstone that are practically deserted of a nice weekend. There's more than enough to cope with any realistic surge in popularity post Olympics.
jk
In reply to redsulike: I started a thread about this the other week.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=367806&v=1#x5346478
Seems like the most common reason that people don't want it to become an Olympic sport is that it will make climbing more popular and the crags will be busier as a result. Seems a bit selfish to me.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=367806&v=1#x5346478
Seems like the most common reason that people don't want it to become an Olympic sport is that it will make climbing more popular and the crags will be busier as a result. Seems a bit selfish to me.
In reply to Phil Payne:
Is it not all pie in the sky? Look at all the sports trying to get in. Does climbing actually stand a chance of getting into the Olympics?
What's the straight dope on this Graeme?
Is it all about the money?
Is it not all pie in the sky? Look at all the sports trying to get in. Does climbing actually stand a chance of getting into the Olympics?
What's the straight dope on this Graeme?
Is it all about the money?
In reply to Al Evans:
Sorry Al, are you bemoaning the fact the youngsters these days don't go climbing outdoors often enough, or worrying in case they do ?
The BMC must be the only such body that does not promote the sport it represents. If we had a seperate body which just dealt with indoor climbing and comps (and lets face it, it is quite a differant sport, which is why some people initially have problems crossing over), would it be so reticent to promote the sport ?
Sorry Al, are you bemoaning the fact the youngsters these days don't go climbing outdoors often enough, or worrying in case they do ?
The BMC must be the only such body that does not promote the sport it represents. If we had a seperate body which just dealt with indoor climbing and comps (and lets face it, it is quite a differant sport, which is why some people initially have problems crossing over), would it be so reticent to promote the sport ?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I can't log off as none of us know the password to log back on!!
I honestly don't know whether climbing stands a chance of getting in. At the moment the answer is no which is why the IFSC did not apply to get in to 2016.
The IOC have a list of criteria. Some criteria we do very well on eg appeal to youngsters, cost of facilities and good drug free record. Other criteria we don't do so well on at the moment eg TV coverage of World Championships.
Is it all about the money? Not for me it's not, to me it is about the logical progression of any formalised sport to aim for the Olympics.
Graeme on The Works login
I honestly don't know whether climbing stands a chance of getting in. At the moment the answer is no which is why the IFSC did not apply to get in to 2016.
The IOC have a list of criteria. Some criteria we do very well on eg appeal to youngsters, cost of facilities and good drug free record. Other criteria we don't do so well on at the moment eg TV coverage of World Championships.
Is it all about the money? Not for me it's not, to me it is about the logical progression of any formalised sport to aim for the Olympics.
Graeme on The Works login
In reply to PeterM:
Why would it necessarily be dull though?
The British Bouldering Champs at Cliffhanger aren't dull to watch. Nor is the Arco Rockmaster.
Why would it necessarily be dull though?
The British Bouldering Champs at Cliffhanger aren't dull to watch. Nor is the Arco Rockmaster.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Why does it have to be about the money Mick? My daughter loves climbing, indoors, outdoors, sport, trad, Bouldering, UK and abroad. She also loves competition climbing and is heading in the right direction with that. Whilst watching the Olympics last year she asked why climbing isn't an Olympic Sport as she would love to compete there as she saw it as being the pinnacle of her sport if it was. I'm sure anyone involved in competitions would appreciate help financially as it really is a piss poor sport! I know of one really good climber who had to cancel a trip to a world cup event as they couldn't afford it.. My daughter didn't pick climbing to make a fortune, she tried it & loved it, same as most others I think.
Bill
> (In reply to Phil Payne)
>
> >
> Is it all about the money?
>
> >
> Is it all about the money?
Why does it have to be about the money Mick? My daughter loves climbing, indoors, outdoors, sport, trad, Bouldering, UK and abroad. She also loves competition climbing and is heading in the right direction with that. Whilst watching the Olympics last year she asked why climbing isn't an Olympic Sport as she would love to compete there as she saw it as being the pinnacle of her sport if it was. I'm sure anyone involved in competitions would appreciate help financially as it really is a piss poor sport! I know of one really good climber who had to cancel a trip to a world cup event as they couldn't afford it.. My daughter didn't pick climbing to make a fortune, she tried it & loved it, same as most others I think.
Bill
In reply to alex:
How many people offering opinions on climbing as an Olympic sport have a vested (financial) interest in it becoming one?
I know I do. It would benefit UKC enormously. It will benefit the BMC, photographers, media, many climbing companies, those who compete.
Maybe we should recuse ourselves from this debate and have a ballet of all BMC members.
> (In reply to PeterM)
>
> Why would it necessarily be dull though?
>
> The British Bouldering Champs at Cliffhanger aren't dull to watch. Nor is the Arco Rockmaster.
>
> Why would it necessarily be dull though?
>
> The British Bouldering Champs at Cliffhanger aren't dull to watch. Nor is the Arco Rockmaster.
How many people offering opinions on climbing as an Olympic sport have a vested (financial) interest in it becoming one?
I know I do. It would benefit UKC enormously. It will benefit the BMC, photographers, media, many climbing companies, those who compete.
Maybe we should recuse ourselves from this debate and have a ballet of all BMC members.
In reply to Bill Davidson:
You can still compete without climbing being an Olympic sport.
Because to many people that is the driving force in this.
Tell me about it. I've written an editorial about Drew not being able to get travel expenses.
You can still compete without climbing being an Olympic sport.
> Why does it have to be about the money Mick?
Because to many people that is the driving force in this.
> I know of one really good climber who had to cancel a trip to a world cup event as they couldn't afford it
Tell me about it. I've written an editorial about Drew not being able to get travel expenses.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
<mental picture of Dave Turnbull in a tutu>
Ha ha. I'd pay good money to see that.
> and have a ballet of all BMC members.
<mental picture of Dave Turnbull in a tutu>
Ha ha. I'd pay good money to see that.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Does the choice of Golf over Squash indicate it's down to popularity, equipment sales, TV rights or sponsporship? It clearly has nothing to do with integral sporting merit, because golf is completely lacking in that
But that's not the point of the BMC discussion.
The BMC's decision will probably have very little influence on the outcome of the IOC decision, but could have major ramifications for the BMC itself. In particular in it's relations with the IFSC. Worse case scenarios would be a split in the BMC and two bodies fighting each other for prominence, or on the other hand a BMC which loses sight of access issues in pursuit of olympic glory for the elite.
> Is it all about the money?
Does the choice of Golf over Squash indicate it's down to popularity, equipment sales, TV rights or sponsporship? It clearly has nothing to do with integral sporting merit, because golf is completely lacking in that
But that's not the point of the BMC discussion.
The BMC's decision will probably have very little influence on the outcome of the IOC decision, but could have major ramifications for the BMC itself. In particular in it's relations with the IFSC. Worse case scenarios would be a split in the BMC and two bodies fighting each other for prominence, or on the other hand a BMC which loses sight of access issues in pursuit of olympic glory for the elite.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Yes I would benefit but that does not mean that the reason I advocate climbing in the Olympics is driven by my financial interest.
No the BMC should not ballot it's members as that is not how the BMC works. The National Council should make the decision. Then if enough people disagree with the National Council they can always call for a motion at the AGM. That's how it works, doing anything else would require a change in the Articles of Association etc.
> How many people offering opinions on climbing as an Olympic sport have a vested (financial) interest in it becoming one?
Yes I would benefit but that does not mean that the reason I advocate climbing in the Olympics is driven by my financial interest.
> Maybe we should recuse ourselves from this debate and have a ballet of all BMC members.
No the BMC should not ballot it's members as that is not how the BMC works. The National Council should make the decision. Then if enough people disagree with the National Council they can always call for a motion at the AGM. That's how it works, doing anything else would require a change in the Articles of Association etc.
In reply to redsulike:
there are plenty of sports you wouldn't normally watch outside the olympics eg judo. why not comp climbing?
there are plenty of sports you wouldn't normally watch outside the olympics eg judo. why not comp climbing?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's a done deal Chris.
There will be discussions....of course.
But in the end:
This September the BMC will join the Mountaineering Council of Scotland in backing the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) in its is campaign to get competition climbing upgraded to the Olympics.
Then we can move on and get this silly episode out of the way, and start thinking how to actually properly fund those climbers who are good competition climbing.
It's a done deal Chris.
There will be discussions....of course.
But in the end:
This September the BMC will join the Mountaineering Council of Scotland in backing the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) in its is campaign to get competition climbing upgraded to the Olympics.
Then we can move on and get this silly episode out of the way, and start thinking how to actually properly fund those climbers who are good competition climbing.
In reply to redsulike:
Would being Olympic Climbing Champion mean a huge deal to the climbing world.
In Golf or Tennis, the real kudos comes from being a "major" winner.
Climbing would be similar IMO
Would being Olympic Climbing Champion mean a huge deal to the climbing world.
In Golf or Tennis, the real kudos comes from being a "major" winner.
Climbing would be similar IMO
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I haven't got a vested interest and I am keen to hear opinions before I cast my vote as the Peak area representative
I haven't got a vested interest and I am keen to hear opinions before I cast my vote as the Peak area representative
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
>Then if enough people disagree with the National Council they can always call for a motion at the AGM.
Has that ever happened?
People are apathetic.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> [...]
>Then if enough people disagree with the National Council they can always call for a motion at the AGM.
Has that ever happened?
People are apathetic.
In reply to redsulike: I'm happy for it to be an olympic sport, I'm less happy if it means limited British Mountaineering Council funds or other resources are spent on pursuing it.
Given fundraising time is also a limited resource, that objection includes BMC pursuing external funding to support olympians over funding for access, campaigning etc. - Competition should be an adjunct to the access and improvement work in the mountain environment.
Either that or a separate body should represent the best interests of elite athletes. I'd be unhappy if I thought my membership subscription was supporting a tiny minority of elite athletes instead of serving the best interests of the majority. I see my subscription as akin to Union Subs, not as an entirely altruistic donation to a body helping others.
And no, I don't think "trickle down" is a relevant argument in this context.
Given fundraising time is also a limited resource, that objection includes BMC pursuing external funding to support olympians over funding for access, campaigning etc. - Competition should be an adjunct to the access and improvement work in the mountain environment.
Either that or a separate body should represent the best interests of elite athletes. I'd be unhappy if I thought my membership subscription was supporting a tiny minority of elite athletes instead of serving the best interests of the majority. I see my subscription as akin to Union Subs, not as an entirely altruistic donation to a body helping others.
And no, I don't think "trickle down" is a relevant argument in this context.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Graeme,
What has to happen for competition climbing to be made an Olympic sport?
M
Graeme,
What has to happen for competition climbing to be made an Olympic sport?
M
no imo. For me the olympics should be an athletics competition, i.e. mainly track/field/pool
chuck out tennis, squash, football and anything else with a more important individual championship structure. The olympics has become a bloated, costly affair.
chuck out tennis, squash, football and anything else with a more important individual championship structure. The olympics has become a bloated, costly affair.
In reply to Chris the Tall: I don't suppose it's relevant in this day and age, but some of us were drawn to climbing precisely because it wasn't organised in any way. 'We climb because it's there and we are mad - a fine kind of madness though'.
The organistion of climbing today has made it just another facet of homogenous consumer culture.
The organistion of climbing today has made it just another facet of homogenous consumer culture.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Apply, get short listed by the technical guys at the IOC and then get voted in at the IOC AGM. Simples
In reply to Chris the Tall:
You are (I think deliberately, as you should) missing my point. What a lot of peoples objections are to climbing becoming an Olympic sport, are that it will make the long established outdoor sport of rock climbing too popular.
So what I am suggesting is that the BMC embrace it, but make it very clear to all participants that indoor and comp climbing has little to do with real climbing, which is an adventure sport carried on out of doors.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> Sorry Al, are you bemoaning the fact the youngsters these days don't go climbing outdoors often enough, or worrying in case they do ?
> Sorry Al, are you bemoaning the fact the youngsters these days don't go climbing outdoors often enough, or worrying in case they do ?
You are (I think deliberately, as you should) missing my point. What a lot of peoples objections are to climbing becoming an Olympic sport, are that it will make the long established outdoor sport of rock climbing too popular.
So what I am suggesting is that the BMC embrace it, but make it very clear to all participants that indoor and comp climbing has little to do with real climbing, which is an adventure sport carried on out of doors.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Not simple Graeme.
What criteria does a sport have to fulfill?
Come on you are the expert. Explain!
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Apply, get short listed by the technical guys at the IOC and then get voted in at the IOC AGM. Simples
Not simple Graeme.
What criteria does a sport have to fulfill?
Come on you are the expert. Explain!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The list of boxes to tick is here http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_813.pdf but I don't know how the answers are marked
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The criteria are here:
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1135.pdf
1. History & tradition
2. Universality
3. Popularity
4. Image
5. Athletes' Health
7. Development of the IF (?)
8. Costs...
The criteria are here:
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1135.pdf
1. History & tradition
2. Universality
3. Popularity
4. Image
5. Athletes' Health
7. Development of the IF (?)
8. Costs...
In reply to redsulike:
If folk want to have competitions to see who can get up the steepest bit of plywood with the smallest bits of plastic stuck onto them then fine. It's got very little to do with real climbing though and the BMC shouldn't get diverted from looking after the interests of climbers.
Of course I'm sure that there are people in the BMC who smell nicely paid jobs and trips to important meetings to talk bollocks to other important people and quite like the idea of that. Therefore I guess they won't be able to resist the temptation of getting involved in something that's got bugger all to do with real climbing.
If folk want to have competitions to see who can get up the steepest bit of plywood with the smallest bits of plastic stuck onto them then fine. It's got very little to do with real climbing though and the BMC shouldn't get diverted from looking after the interests of climbers.
Of course I'm sure that there are people in the BMC who smell nicely paid jobs and trips to important meetings to talk bollocks to other important people and quite like the idea of that. Therefore I guess they won't be able to resist the temptation of getting involved in something that's got bugger all to do with real climbing.
In reply to The Climbing Works:
I think it would be great to have climbing as an Olympic event, I mean golf got in didn't it and that isn't even a sport. it's a game played by men with little balls who need a buggy to carry them and their clubs to the next hole.
I think it would be great to have climbing as an Olympic event, I mean golf got in didn't it and that isn't even a sport. it's a game played by men with little balls who need a buggy to carry them and their clubs to the next hole.
In reply to PDB: Golfs not in yet. It has just been short listed. The vote takes place at the IOC's AGM
In reply to Removed User: You seem to be missing on rather important point. Namely the BMC is already involved with comps and has been for over 20 years - the BMC hosted the first ever World Cup back in May 1989. I haven't noticed the BMC neglecting it's other work areas in the last 20 years.
And one pther little snippet. The development of modern day walls would have been delayed without comps. The Foundry received significant grant aid as a result of Simon Nadin being World Champion. And I think it is generally accepted that the Foundry showed what was possible for climbing walls.
And one pther little snippet. The development of modern day walls would have been delayed without comps. The Foundry received significant grant aid as a result of Simon Nadin being World Champion. And I think it is generally accepted that the Foundry showed what was possible for climbing walls.
In reply to redsulike: I consider the top 'comp' climbers in the world today to be atheletes (spelling?)- and gobsmackingly good ones at that, i without a doubt believe it should be an olympic sport.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
fingers crossed golf doesn't get in, what an absurdity that would be.
fingers crossed golf doesn't get in, what an absurdity that would be.
In reply to Graeme Alderson: and the history section... :-P
In reply to BigMac: Working on it but won't be ready for issue 1
In reply to Graeme Alderson: no worries!! Lucy may be getting in touch to run something by you... not sure if she will have time though...
In reply to Removed User:
surely the person who gets up the hardest bit of plastic could be among the top climbers on real rock? have a look at the latest world cup results...plenty of "proper" climbers in there.
> (In reply to Removed Userredsulike)
>
> If folk want to have competitions to see who can get up the steepest bit of plywood with the smallest bits of plastic stuck onto them then fine. It's got very little to do with real climbing though
>
> If folk want to have competitions to see who can get up the steepest bit of plywood with the smallest bits of plastic stuck onto them then fine. It's got very little to do with real climbing though
surely the person who gets up the hardest bit of plastic could be among the top climbers on real rock? have a look at the latest world cup results...plenty of "proper" climbers in there.
In reply to toad:
As far as I am concerned the BMC is primarily a pressure group for climbers and hill walkers. Access should always be in first priority, ahead of all the other stuff it does - clubs, huts, tech, information, comps, walls etc etc. The fear is that if climbing were in the olympics, then that would be the top priority. Many canoeists believe this is what's happened to the BCU, to the detriment of their sport. On the other hand, forewarned is forearmed, and whilst the BMC has recently added a third full-time officer to it's access team, I'm not aware of any plans for an extra comps officer.
I too would be unhappy at my BMC subs going directly towards the support of elite climbers - and that applies both in terms of comps and expeditions. However, as a taxpayer, I am in favour of govt money going to fund such things, and so I am happy for BMC staff to spend time in persuing those funds. It's something they seem to be getting pretty good at.
It's quite possible that if climbing were to become an olympic sport, the BMC would struggle to cope with the differant demands. My view is lets cross that bridge when we come to it
> (In reply to redsulike) I'm happy for it to be an olympic sport, I'm less happy if it means limited British Mountaineering Council funds or other resources are spent on pursuing it.
>
> Given fundraising time is also a limited resource, that objection includes BMC pursuing external funding to support olympians over funding for access, campaigning etc. - Competition should be an adjunct to the access and improvement work in the mountain environment.
>
> Either that or a separate body should represent the best interests of elite athletes. I'd be unhappy if I thought my membership subscription was supporting a tiny minority of elite athletes instead of serving the best interests of the majority. I see my subscription as akin to Union Subs, not as an entirely altruistic donation to a body helping others.
>
>
> Given fundraising time is also a limited resource, that objection includes BMC pursuing external funding to support olympians over funding for access, campaigning etc. - Competition should be an adjunct to the access and improvement work in the mountain environment.
>
> Either that or a separate body should represent the best interests of elite athletes. I'd be unhappy if I thought my membership subscription was supporting a tiny minority of elite athletes instead of serving the best interests of the majority. I see my subscription as akin to Union Subs, not as an entirely altruistic donation to a body helping others.
>
As far as I am concerned the BMC is primarily a pressure group for climbers and hill walkers. Access should always be in first priority, ahead of all the other stuff it does - clubs, huts, tech, information, comps, walls etc etc. The fear is that if climbing were in the olympics, then that would be the top priority. Many canoeists believe this is what's happened to the BCU, to the detriment of their sport. On the other hand, forewarned is forearmed, and whilst the BMC has recently added a third full-time officer to it's access team, I'm not aware of any plans for an extra comps officer.
I too would be unhappy at my BMC subs going directly towards the support of elite climbers - and that applies both in terms of comps and expeditions. However, as a taxpayer, I am in favour of govt money going to fund such things, and so I am happy for BMC staff to spend time in persuing those funds. It's something they seem to be getting pretty good at.
It's quite possible that if climbing were to become an olympic sport, the BMC would struggle to cope with the differant demands. My view is lets cross that bridge when we come to it
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Grant staff have a limited resource - time. They are usually judged (be it through actual incentives or at annual appraisal) by results. The temptation is therefore to go after projects which have the most money available or which are easiest to fit to the selection criteria, at the expense of core activities. I could easily see this translating into olympics, because that's where the money will be. I'm not saying that's what is or is going to happen, I'm saying that it is something to be aware ofand ensure doesn't happen.
> (In reply to toad)
> [...]
>> > [...]
> I too would be unhappy at my BMC subs going directly towards the support of elite climbers - and that applies both in terms of comps and expeditions. However, as a taxpayer, I am in favour of govt money going to fund such things, and so I am happy for BMC staff to spend time in persuing those funds. It's something they seem to be getting pretty good at.
>
I'm broadly in sympathy with that, but do have one observation regarding grants, and given I don't know the details of how the BMC staff work, apologies if I'm wide of the mark, I can only go off what I know of similar organisations.>
Grant staff have a limited resource - time. They are usually judged (be it through actual incentives or at annual appraisal) by results. The temptation is therefore to go after projects which have the most money available or which are easiest to fit to the selection criteria, at the expense of core activities. I could easily see this translating into olympics, because that's where the money will be. I'm not saying that's what is or is going to happen, I'm saying that it is something to be aware ofand ensure doesn't happen.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Maby the the setting up of secoundary organsation linked with BMC but not finaical supported by it. Which primary concern is for olympic and climbing based comp in the uk should be set.
In reply to toad:
To be honest, neither do I. They are professional people, all we can do as members/activists is point them in the right direction. Clearly there are overheads in chasing grants, clearly there are consequences of getting them, but at the end of the day you have to trust the professionals. And hey, it's not as if they aren't climbers themselves
> [...]
> I'm broadly in sympathy with that, but do have one observation regarding grants, and given I don't know the details of how the BMC staff work, apologies if I'm wide of the mark, I can only go off what I know of similar organisations.
>
> I'm broadly in sympathy with that, but do have one observation regarding grants, and given I don't know the details of how the BMC staff work, apologies if I'm wide of the mark, I can only go off what I know of similar organisations.
>
To be honest, neither do I. They are professional people, all we can do as members/activists is point them in the right direction. Clearly there are overheads in chasing grants, clearly there are consequences of getting them, but at the end of the day you have to trust the professionals. And hey, it's not as if they aren't climbers themselves
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Quite possibly. It doesn't mean that the BMC should be involved. I can just see the outlook of the BMC changing when jobs and money depend upon the funding they'd get from their Olympic activities.
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> surely the person who gets up the hardest bit of plastic could be among the top climbers on real rock? have a look at the latest world cup results...plenty of "proper" climbers in there.
> [...]
>
> surely the person who gets up the hardest bit of plastic could be among the top climbers on real rock? have a look at the latest world cup results...plenty of "proper" climbers in there.
Quite possibly. It doesn't mean that the BMC should be involved. I can just see the outlook of the BMC changing when jobs and money depend upon the funding they'd get from their Olympic activities.
In reply to Removed User:
Good point. If you look at the funding of national and international Olympic sports governing bodies, they are dominated by Olympic money. These are either grants from the IOC, which shares the broadcast revenue it receives with international sport governing bodies, or grants from national government or in the UK the lottery, to national governing bodies.
So you can bet the Olympics figure highly in the attention of those who run those bodies. There's an argument that the benefits from these wads of Olympic cash trickle down to the grassroots of the sport and to a certain extent I'm sure that's true. There's an argument that the needs of a tiny number of elite Olympic contenders wield a highly disproportionate influence over the policies of governing bodies. Take your pick.
> Quite possibly. It doesn't mean that the BMC should be involved. I can just see the outlook of the BMC changing when jobs and money depend upon the funding they'd get from their Olympic activities.
Good point. If you look at the funding of national and international Olympic sports governing bodies, they are dominated by Olympic money. These are either grants from the IOC, which shares the broadcast revenue it receives with international sport governing bodies, or grants from national government or in the UK the lottery, to national governing bodies.
So you can bet the Olympics figure highly in the attention of those who run those bodies. There's an argument that the benefits from these wads of Olympic cash trickle down to the grassroots of the sport and to a certain extent I'm sure that's true. There's an argument that the needs of a tiny number of elite Olympic contenders wield a highly disproportionate influence over the policies of governing bodies. Take your pick.
In reply to Dogwatch:
In my opinion climbing being in the olympics would have no affect on the day to day running of the BMC, apart from perhaps even improving issues that the BMC devote their time to dealing with. This is because olympic sports get large amounts of grant funding from places like UK Sport who announced funding for olympic sports earlier this year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/7761495.stm
For example basket ball, a sport that they didn't expect to win any medals and didn't, is getting £8.75 million in the runup to the olympic games. I don't know how much the BMC spend each year but I think £8.75 million would go a long way in improving every aspect of the BMC.
Thanks,
Tiny
In my opinion climbing being in the olympics would have no affect on the day to day running of the BMC, apart from perhaps even improving issues that the BMC devote their time to dealing with. This is because olympic sports get large amounts of grant funding from places like UK Sport who announced funding for olympic sports earlier this year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/7761495.stm
For example basket ball, a sport that they didn't expect to win any medals and didn't, is getting £8.75 million in the runup to the olympic games. I don't know how much the BMC spend each year but I think £8.75 million would go a long way in improving every aspect of the BMC.
Thanks,
Tiny
In reply to redsulike: having started the discussion I am away from the computer (In Spain) at the moment but have now read the thread.
Yes I would be against the BMC supporting climbing as an Olympic sport. Sorry Chris it isn´t a sport, but then neither is Darts or Snooker.
I fear as Mick says it is a done deal however and all this `discussion´is simply ´window dressing´ that gives a nod to the lame horse of the democratic process. No doubt some wag in manchester will be rolling out the soundbite saying `65,000 members of the BMC support the British Application`.
I too see vested interests of climbing the climbing wall industry and sport climbing moving with an invisible hand within the BMC to promote indoor climbing. An increased profile in the Olympics will really give them a financial boost, you cannot buy advertising like that.
As a member of the BMC I am becoming oncreasingly disappointed that the leadership and activists do not represent my interests but those of a sizeable minority within the BMC. In pursuing an Olympic bid the BMC is taking another step further away from its grass roots members who are traditional rock climbers and their interests and aims it was originally set up to protect and promote.
An Olympic bid will cost money, my money. Sponsoring climbers to attend competitions will cost more money, my money. If someone´s daughter wants to attend a climbing competition I think you have a bit of a´brass-neck´ expecting me to support her. There are elite climbers who see this as a way of creating a career structure, a ladder to making a living, but of course they need someone to fund it. There is not enough interest and not enough spectators at the moment. What they are asking BMC members to do is to fund that career structure. The BMC is not an organisation with a rationale to provide the structure for commercial sporting interests.
Personally, as Chris postulated, (but not supported...I think), I would like to see the BMC drop its support for all forms of competition. That way sport climbers, indoor climbers, climbing wall owners, elite climbers, and Olympic climbers could pursue their interests elsewhere in an organisation more suited to their needs.
Yes I would be against the BMC supporting climbing as an Olympic sport. Sorry Chris it isn´t a sport, but then neither is Darts or Snooker.
I fear as Mick says it is a done deal however and all this `discussion´is simply ´window dressing´ that gives a nod to the lame horse of the democratic process. No doubt some wag in manchester will be rolling out the soundbite saying `65,000 members of the BMC support the British Application`.
I too see vested interests of climbing the climbing wall industry and sport climbing moving with an invisible hand within the BMC to promote indoor climbing. An increased profile in the Olympics will really give them a financial boost, you cannot buy advertising like that.
As a member of the BMC I am becoming oncreasingly disappointed that the leadership and activists do not represent my interests but those of a sizeable minority within the BMC. In pursuing an Olympic bid the BMC is taking another step further away from its grass roots members who are traditional rock climbers and their interests and aims it was originally set up to protect and promote.
An Olympic bid will cost money, my money. Sponsoring climbers to attend competitions will cost more money, my money. If someone´s daughter wants to attend a climbing competition I think you have a bit of a´brass-neck´ expecting me to support her. There are elite climbers who see this as a way of creating a career structure, a ladder to making a living, but of course they need someone to fund it. There is not enough interest and not enough spectators at the moment. What they are asking BMC members to do is to fund that career structure. The BMC is not an organisation with a rationale to provide the structure for commercial sporting interests.
Personally, as Chris postulated, (but not supported...I think), I would like to see the BMC drop its support for all forms of competition. That way sport climbers, indoor climbers, climbing wall owners, elite climbers, and Olympic climbers could pursue their interests elsewhere in an organisation more suited to their needs.
In reply to redsulike: Vote Scott. Oh, hang on....
In reply to Chris the Tall:
from my perspective (climbing for more than 10 years, having maybe more social contacts among climbers than non-climbers, got into it after mountain hiking and mountaineering, discovering that rock climbing retains a lot of the fun, the challenge and the beauty of those activities, with a fraction of the pain and sacrifice)
competition climbing doesn't have anything wrong, except one thing. It wants to give an image of "seriousness" that is, in my opinion, really unlike what the rock climbing "subculture" is, at least the dominant one.
I'm not saying that competitors are boring people, just that they are asked to act strict and straight in some situations, and that for instance some "not too serious" talents can have trouble with their trainers because of their attitude (too drunk at the aftercomp party and vomiting in the hotel payed by the federation, for instance, is not something to be done twice).
Results are not secondary, or a "soft" requirement. If a nation has 5 places for a WC event, maybe they don't bring the real best, but I doubt their 20th athlete @nationals could make it.
on the opposite there are several outdoor-only climbers that are sponsored as "ambassadors". They are not payed just to pull hard, indeed the grades might even be a secondary issue (and if needed they can be cheated :p): urban legends say that in the US you can get a fair sponsorship with a V12 bouldering level and lots of social and commercial skills.
What they are given money for is probably to be friendly, easy going, and looking as they were living a dream. Indeed some of them are really living a dream, doing the climbing-bum life around the world 12 months round...
What they contribute selling, is climbing as a "lifestyle sport".
In a way, they also influence and perpetuate the climbing subculture, which is the part I care about.
If climbing becomes olympic, I guess seriousness would become dominant...
Another fear I have is doping. With enough money in the bussiness, sports doctors and pharmaceutical company will start to see climbers as a potential market, and yes they will put their hands on us...
well I prefer dope that gets you stoned, than dope that gets you climbing 9c (with who knows what odd side effects)
> The question I want to ask is why not ?
from my perspective (climbing for more than 10 years, having maybe more social contacts among climbers than non-climbers, got into it after mountain hiking and mountaineering, discovering that rock climbing retains a lot of the fun, the challenge and the beauty of those activities, with a fraction of the pain and sacrifice)
competition climbing doesn't have anything wrong, except one thing. It wants to give an image of "seriousness" that is, in my opinion, really unlike what the rock climbing "subculture" is, at least the dominant one.
I'm not saying that competitors are boring people, just that they are asked to act strict and straight in some situations, and that for instance some "not too serious" talents can have trouble with their trainers because of their attitude (too drunk at the aftercomp party and vomiting in the hotel payed by the federation, for instance, is not something to be done twice).
Results are not secondary, or a "soft" requirement. If a nation has 5 places for a WC event, maybe they don't bring the real best, but I doubt their 20th athlete @nationals could make it.
on the opposite there are several outdoor-only climbers that are sponsored as "ambassadors". They are not payed just to pull hard, indeed the grades might even be a secondary issue (and if needed they can be cheated :p): urban legends say that in the US you can get a fair sponsorship with a V12 bouldering level and lots of social and commercial skills.
What they are given money for is probably to be friendly, easy going, and looking as they were living a dream. Indeed some of them are really living a dream, doing the climbing-bum life around the world 12 months round...
What they contribute selling, is climbing as a "lifestyle sport".
In a way, they also influence and perpetuate the climbing subculture, which is the part I care about.
If climbing becomes olympic, I guess seriousness would become dominant...
Another fear I have is doping. With enough money in the bussiness, sports doctors and pharmaceutical company will start to see climbers as a potential market, and yes they will put their hands on us...
well I prefer dope that gets you stoned, than dope that gets you climbing 9c (with who knows what odd side effects)
In reply to redsulike:
Yes, there are climbing wall owners/managers involved in the BMC, yes they tend to be in favour of comps and the olympics,yes there industry would benefit. Since you don't like climbing walls (can't see why) then I don't see why you would be concerned if they were busier.
Actually, at this stage saying yes would cost no more than a first class stamp on the letter to the IFSC. There is no plan to start actively lobbying anyone in the IOC
>Sponsoring climbers to attend competitions will cost more money, my money. If someone´s daughter wants to attend a climbing competition I think you have a bit of a´brass-neck´ expecting me to support her. There are elite climbers who see this as a way of creating a career structure, a ladder to making a living, but of course they need someone to fund it. There is not enough interest and not enough spectators at the moment. What they are asking BMC members to do is to fund that career structure.
Again, anyone who hopes to earn a living through climbing competions will be sorely disappointed and there is certainly no suggestion of the BMC funding any elite climbers.
However there are costs associated with running climbing comps, travel cost for the competitors etc, not to mention a full time comps officer. I'm not sure how much(if any) of that money comes from your subs, and how much from the sports council (or whatever it called), so there might be a valid concern there - can you shed any light Graeme ?
Your right in thinking that I don't support that, as I don't want to see the BMC step back 20 years back to the days when it was just an umbrella organisation for clubs. I think that the BMC would be seriously weakend if fragmentation were to occur, and if it were only to represent "traditional climbers", since I don't think there are that many people who fit neatly into that pigeonhole
>
> I too see vested interests of climbing the climbing wall industry and sport climbing moving with an invisible hand within the BMC to promote indoor climbing. An increased profile in the Olympics will really give them a financial boost, you cannot buy advertising like that.
>> I too see vested interests of climbing the climbing wall industry and sport climbing moving with an invisible hand within the BMC to promote indoor climbing. An increased profile in the Olympics will really give them a financial boost, you cannot buy advertising like that.
Yes, there are climbing wall owners/managers involved in the BMC, yes they tend to be in favour of comps and the olympics,yes there industry would benefit. Since you don't like climbing walls (can't see why) then I don't see why you would be concerned if they were busier.
> An Olympic bid will cost money, my money.
Actually, at this stage saying yes would cost no more than a first class stamp on the letter to the IFSC. There is no plan to start actively lobbying anyone in the IOC
>Sponsoring climbers to attend competitions will cost more money, my money. If someone´s daughter wants to attend a climbing competition I think you have a bit of a´brass-neck´ expecting me to support her. There are elite climbers who see this as a way of creating a career structure, a ladder to making a living, but of course they need someone to fund it. There is not enough interest and not enough spectators at the moment. What they are asking BMC members to do is to fund that career structure.
Again, anyone who hopes to earn a living through climbing competions will be sorely disappointed and there is certainly no suggestion of the BMC funding any elite climbers.
However there are costs associated with running climbing comps, travel cost for the competitors etc, not to mention a full time comps officer. I'm not sure how much(if any) of that money comes from your subs, and how much from the sports council (or whatever it called), so there might be a valid concern there - can you shed any light Graeme ?
>
> Personally, as Chris postulated, (but not supported...I think), I would like to see the BMC drop its support for all forms of competition. That way sport climbers, indoor climbers, climbing wall owners, elite climbers, and Olympic climbers could pursue their interests elsewhere in an organisation more suited to their needs.
> Personally, as Chris postulated, (but not supported...I think), I would like to see the BMC drop its support for all forms of competition. That way sport climbers, indoor climbers, climbing wall owners, elite climbers, and Olympic climbers could pursue their interests elsewhere in an organisation more suited to their needs.
Your right in thinking that I don't support that, as I don't want to see the BMC step back 20 years back to the days when it was just an umbrella organisation for clubs. I think that the BMC would be seriously weakend if fragmentation were to occur, and if it were only to represent "traditional climbers", since I don't think there are that many people who fit neatly into that pigeonhole
In reply to Chris the Tall:
As far as I am aware the BMC gives £15000 pa to comps plus there is a similar sized grant from Sport England.
One important point to note about BMC finances - a significant amount of the BMC's budget is NOT derived from membership subs, it comes from the BMC's trading activities, mainly from insurance sales.
> (In reply to redsulike)
>
> However there are costs associated with running climbing comps, travel cost for the competitors etc, not to mention a full time comps officer. I'm not sure how much(if any) of that money comes from your subs, and how much from the sports council (or whatever it called), so there might be a valid concern there - can you shed any light Graeme ?
>
> However there are costs associated with running climbing comps, travel cost for the competitors etc, not to mention a full time comps officer. I'm not sure how much(if any) of that money comes from your subs, and how much from the sports council (or whatever it called), so there might be a valid concern there - can you shed any light Graeme ?
As far as I am aware the BMC gives £15000 pa to comps plus there is a similar sized grant from Sport England.
One important point to note about BMC finances - a significant amount of the BMC's budget is NOT derived from membership subs, it comes from the BMC's trading activities, mainly from insurance sales.
In reply to redsulike: Hi, Have read the whole thread - could I add a few thoughts?
It's not a trad v sports argument really. You can climb trad and sports (no matter how 'seriously') as a 'recreation'. Under Sports Sociology definitions, rockclimbing's part of 'Play', the widest category of things we do 'for fun'. So rockclimbing has 'mores' ie generally agreed ways to judge success but not real rules, judges, exactly the same conditions for every ascent, etc.
At the next level, if 'Play' has fixed rules, judges, time limits, same conditions for all competitors, etc and are set up for 'fair chances for all', it is a'Game'. Games use fine muscle movements, eg darts. 'Sports' are a sub-division of Games; with rules, etc but using large muscle movements. Competition Climbing is a Sport and thus qualifies for the Olympics in that respect. Tiddlywinks or darts does not.
Why has climbing not made it into the Olympics before? Been talked about since late 19980's:
Comps for difficulty are not good spectator sports and boring for non-climbers to watch, eg after the first 10 on a qualification route, etc. The comps do not feature direct interpersonal competition, non-climbers have no real appreciation of the difficulty, they are not 'living out the moves' as we might be and everything happens relatively slowly.
Speed climbing comps (out of fashion) on the other hand, are great fun for all to watch - fast, 2 at once, great lunges and leaps, easily appreciated who is 'best'.
Funding - the UK powers that be love being nationalistic and fund for UK champs, eg when Simon Nadin became World Champ in the 1990's, our funding shot up enormously. Then dropped later when we had no success. Not sure this bleeds off funds for recreational climbing of any sort...
Long live all branches of our activity, as long as it's environmentally-sound(as much as pos). Comps, by definition to fulfill fairness of opportunity to win, conditions, lighting etc, have to be indoors, so what's the worry? Don't like it - don't do it.
It's not a trad v sports argument really. You can climb trad and sports (no matter how 'seriously') as a 'recreation'. Under Sports Sociology definitions, rockclimbing's part of 'Play', the widest category of things we do 'for fun'. So rockclimbing has 'mores' ie generally agreed ways to judge success but not real rules, judges, exactly the same conditions for every ascent, etc.
At the next level, if 'Play' has fixed rules, judges, time limits, same conditions for all competitors, etc and are set up for 'fair chances for all', it is a'Game'. Games use fine muscle movements, eg darts. 'Sports' are a sub-division of Games; with rules, etc but using large muscle movements. Competition Climbing is a Sport and thus qualifies for the Olympics in that respect. Tiddlywinks or darts does not.
Why has climbing not made it into the Olympics before? Been talked about since late 19980's:
Comps for difficulty are not good spectator sports and boring for non-climbers to watch, eg after the first 10 on a qualification route, etc. The comps do not feature direct interpersonal competition, non-climbers have no real appreciation of the difficulty, they are not 'living out the moves' as we might be and everything happens relatively slowly.
Speed climbing comps (out of fashion) on the other hand, are great fun for all to watch - fast, 2 at once, great lunges and leaps, easily appreciated who is 'best'.
Funding - the UK powers that be love being nationalistic and fund for UK champs, eg when Simon Nadin became World Champ in the 1990's, our funding shot up enormously. Then dropped later when we had no success. Not sure this bleeds off funds for recreational climbing of any sort...
Long live all branches of our activity, as long as it's environmentally-sound(as much as pos). Comps, by definition to fulfill fairness of opportunity to win, conditions, lighting etc, have to be indoors, so what's the worry? Don't like it - don't do it.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Hola. Its not a question of me liking or disliking climbing walls, and it would be hypocritical to condemn them out of hand, I use them now and again. However can you imagine the outrage if a governmental office had as part of its decision making process members who had vested interests in the promotion of said outcome? Well of course it happens but its illegal and people lose their jobs over it.
Of course when I say ´my money` I do so because I cannot speak for everyone, my personal contribuion is tiny but it is part of the whole and is spent on my (everyone´s) behalf.
Frankly I don´t believe there is no question of the BMC funding any elite climbers, we already fund expeditions and it is only a matter of time till someone suggests that junior competitors and their families cannot be expected to fund trips abroad to enter world championships and the BMC should contribute.
There is a possibility here that those in positions of responsibility and authority in the BMC are scaremongering and railroading members by their statements and the dire consequences of the BMC deciding not to offer support. This will happen, that will happen, we will lose influence here or there. It appears in my eyes that many could not justify their own positions within the organisation if we do not go down this avenue. The BMC does not need competitions in order to remain the leading voice in British Climbing representing the interests of British Climbers (not sportsmen and women and self-promoting ´elite` rock athletes). Climbing isn´t a sport its an activity. Elite sport scrambling anyone? National hill walking trials in April? British and European indoor rope swinging over a river tournament?
Chris, are you suggesting that the ´thin end of the wedge` cannot exist in terms of an any argument, or just simply does not apply in this instance? It may be a tired argument and one you are tired of refuting, but if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it usually is. I heard once that if you place a frog in a pan of boiling water it will jump out, but if you place it in a pan of cold water and heat gradually it up it will swim around until it is poached. Croak!
Of course when I say ´my money` I do so because I cannot speak for everyone, my personal contribuion is tiny but it is part of the whole and is spent on my (everyone´s) behalf.
Frankly I don´t believe there is no question of the BMC funding any elite climbers, we already fund expeditions and it is only a matter of time till someone suggests that junior competitors and their families cannot be expected to fund trips abroad to enter world championships and the BMC should contribute.
There is a possibility here that those in positions of responsibility and authority in the BMC are scaremongering and railroading members by their statements and the dire consequences of the BMC deciding not to offer support. This will happen, that will happen, we will lose influence here or there. It appears in my eyes that many could not justify their own positions within the organisation if we do not go down this avenue. The BMC does not need competitions in order to remain the leading voice in British Climbing representing the interests of British Climbers (not sportsmen and women and self-promoting ´elite` rock athletes). Climbing isn´t a sport its an activity. Elite sport scrambling anyone? National hill walking trials in April? British and European indoor rope swinging over a river tournament?
Chris, are you suggesting that the ´thin end of the wedge` cannot exist in terms of an any argument, or just simply does not apply in this instance? It may be a tired argument and one you are tired of refuting, but if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it usually is. I heard once that if you place a frog in a pan of boiling water it will jump out, but if you place it in a pan of cold water and heat gradually it up it will swim around until it is poached. Croak!
In reply to redsulike: I am interested who these people are, you know the ones with vested interests who are part of the decision making process.
Keep the Olympics about athletics. Poor old athletics would be left without any raison d'être if it weren't for the Olympic and world championships. Hop, skip and jump anyone? I thought not ... Climbers don't need the Olympics and the Olympics doesn't need climbing. The British Canoe Union got into bed with Olympic money and lost touch with grass roots and recreational paddling (and reality).
In reply to redsulike:
With regard to vested interest, there are at least 2 voting members members of the National council who are wall managers. There are several more who are professional guides or instructors, who, by your argument, could benefit from the olympics. I don't see this as being a problem, and it certainly isn't illegal or immoral as you seem to imply. In fact I would say it was quite good that the national council is a mix of the professional and amateur, the old and the young, the hard climbers, the punters, the walkers and the snow plodders.
Also bear in mind that these people are volunteers who give up there time - and quite a lot of it I might add - to put something back into the sport. You may cyncially suggest that they are doing so in the hope of improving their business in the long term, but I don't.
However, the thin end of the wedge is not in itself a bad argument (though I'm afraid it is the climbing equivalent of Godwin's law), and I do see you're point. The lure of Olympic glory could lead the BMC down the wrong line, but that doesn't neccessarily say that it will
With regard to vested interest, there are at least 2 voting members members of the National council who are wall managers. There are several more who are professional guides or instructors, who, by your argument, could benefit from the olympics. I don't see this as being a problem, and it certainly isn't illegal or immoral as you seem to imply. In fact I would say it was quite good that the national council is a mix of the professional and amateur, the old and the young, the hard climbers, the punters, the walkers and the snow plodders.
Also bear in mind that these people are volunteers who give up there time - and quite a lot of it I might add - to put something back into the sport. You may cyncially suggest that they are doing so in the hope of improving their business in the long term, but I don't.
However, the thin end of the wedge is not in itself a bad argument (though I'm afraid it is the climbing equivalent of Godwin's law), and I do see you're point. The lure of Olympic glory could lead the BMC down the wrong line, but that doesn't neccessarily say that it will
In reply to WoodP:
I hear this example quoted quite often. I assume it's true. Do we have any more examples of what has happen to national organisations when they have accepted "olypmic money"? In particular, are there example of how to do it without sacrificing the "grass roots"?
> ... The British Canoe Union got into bed with Olympic money and lost touch with grass roots and recreational paddling (and reality).
I hear this example quoted quite often. I assume it's true. Do we have any more examples of what has happen to national organisations when they have accepted "olypmic money"? In particular, are there example of how to do it without sacrificing the "grass roots"?
In reply to Marek: According to http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3172 the RYA hasn't sacrificed the grass roots
I look forward to the idea.
Then there will be real, professional climbers who we can look up to and admire and watch on TV and then the other people with jobs who just climb for recreation and won't interfere with the development of the sport. With serious money from Sky and such like then upcoming talent will be nurtured properly. It's unlikely that climbing will come to rival football any time soon, but I find myself wondering who the first david beckham of climbing will be.
Then there will be real, professional climbers who we can look up to and admire and watch on TV and then the other people with jobs who just climb for recreation and won't interfere with the development of the sport. With serious money from Sky and such like then upcoming talent will be nurtured properly. It's unlikely that climbing will come to rival football any time soon, but I find myself wondering who the first david beckham of climbing will be.
In reply to Marek:
I sail competitively (and badly): however there are several current and former Olympic medallists who belong to my club, so I'm not entirely divorced from these questions. The national sailing organisation is the RYA and there are pretty constant complaints that their youth training programme is highly focussed on moving an elite few into the Olympic squad. In fact I don't personally believe the RYA is unduly focussed on the Olympics but others would argue otherwise. The international governing body is the ISAF and that receives a significant proportion of its overall funding from the IOC. I don't think anyone involved in sailing would seriously argue against the proposition that the ISAF's main area of attention is Olympic and other "elite" sailing and that it pays little regard to the grassroots sport. Arguably however the grassroots is not the concern of the international governing body.
From what I've seen in sailing I've no doubt at all that if climbing became an Olympic sport, much of the BMC's attention would become focussed on that aspect, but equally more money and resources would come into "climbing administration". Whether that would, as a whole, be a good or bad thing, I'm by no means certain.
> Do we have any more examples of what has happen to national organisations when they have accepted "olypmic money"? In particular, are there example of how to do it without sacrificing the "grass roots"?
I sail competitively (and badly): however there are several current and former Olympic medallists who belong to my club, so I'm not entirely divorced from these questions. The national sailing organisation is the RYA and there are pretty constant complaints that their youth training programme is highly focussed on moving an elite few into the Olympic squad. In fact I don't personally believe the RYA is unduly focussed on the Olympics but others would argue otherwise. The international governing body is the ISAF and that receives a significant proportion of its overall funding from the IOC. I don't think anyone involved in sailing would seriously argue against the proposition that the ISAF's main area of attention is Olympic and other "elite" sailing and that it pays little regard to the grassroots sport. Arguably however the grassroots is not the concern of the international governing body.
From what I've seen in sailing I've no doubt at all that if climbing became an Olympic sport, much of the BMC's attention would become focussed on that aspect, but equally more money and resources would come into "climbing administration". Whether that would, as a whole, be a good or bad thing, I'm by no means certain.
In reply to Dogwatch:
>youth training programme highly focussed on moving an elite few into the Olympic squad
imagine a climbing wall dominated by that logic...
nicely built mid-sized rope wall, 20 roped lines hosting various difficulties, where you have an yearly full-access pass.
There's a pool of 10 to 20 youngsters (aged between 10 and 16) that train there every day after school, half of them can be considered beginners, the others are in a competition programme and climb lines between f6b and f8a on an average training session. They have a tight and detailed training schedule and they are told that they MUST stick to the rest times, difficulties, and other things the trainer has written on their programme.
You are a university student, or you have a job that leaves some spare afternoons. You have a sport redpoint level somewhere between f7b and f8c. the next good crag is too far away, a 1h drive: by the time you get there, it'll be dark (it's winter). It is tuesday, and you can hope for perfect weekend conditions on your outdoor project, a long stamina sport route, THE classic 8b of the area. You need to train well, as the kids do. But they have a comp sunday, indeed a very important one.
You manage to do a couple of warmups with your partner then you are almost tiying in for that nice flowy and pumpy 7b with green holds, but lose some time talking with your belayer about i dont know what, a 10 years old kid comes in and takes the sharp end of the rope from your dull hands. You complain, but to prove he MUST do the route now, he shows you this printed/handwritten A4 sheet that says "10 minute rest then green 7b". His stopwatch says he's rested 8 minutes.
You excuse his rough behaviour (after all you admire him and he's a smart kid) and let your partner belay him, but at the end of the session you go have a talk with the trainer...
...now, will the trainer give a shit about your redpoint objectives and "right" to train at the wall, or would he rather justify his kid and suggest that since he's in the comp programme, and a very promising athlete, a potential olympic champion in 5-6 years, and the competitions are important for the club, they raise funds and prestige and blablabla, and oh the other kids ain't bad too, well next time you have to accept it or better come training after 7 pm?
>youth training programme highly focussed on moving an elite few into the Olympic squad
imagine a climbing wall dominated by that logic...
nicely built mid-sized rope wall, 20 roped lines hosting various difficulties, where you have an yearly full-access pass.
There's a pool of 10 to 20 youngsters (aged between 10 and 16) that train there every day after school, half of them can be considered beginners, the others are in a competition programme and climb lines between f6b and f8a on an average training session. They have a tight and detailed training schedule and they are told that they MUST stick to the rest times, difficulties, and other things the trainer has written on their programme.
You are a university student, or you have a job that leaves some spare afternoons. You have a sport redpoint level somewhere between f7b and f8c. the next good crag is too far away, a 1h drive: by the time you get there, it'll be dark (it's winter). It is tuesday, and you can hope for perfect weekend conditions on your outdoor project, a long stamina sport route, THE classic 8b of the area. You need to train well, as the kids do. But they have a comp sunday, indeed a very important one.
You manage to do a couple of warmups with your partner then you are almost tiying in for that nice flowy and pumpy 7b with green holds, but lose some time talking with your belayer about i dont know what, a 10 years old kid comes in and takes the sharp end of the rope from your dull hands. You complain, but to prove he MUST do the route now, he shows you this printed/handwritten A4 sheet that says "10 minute rest then green 7b". His stopwatch says he's rested 8 minutes.
You excuse his rough behaviour (after all you admire him and he's a smart kid) and let your partner belay him, but at the end of the session you go have a talk with the trainer...
...now, will the trainer give a shit about your redpoint objectives and "right" to train at the wall, or would he rather justify his kid and suggest that since he's in the comp programme, and a very promising athlete, a potential olympic champion in 5-6 years, and the competitions are important for the club, they raise funds and prestige and blablabla, and oh the other kids ain't bad too, well next time you have to accept it or better come training after 7 pm?
other not so fictional example. I've heard "similar" cases from a town where climbing competitions are something serious.
your 12 years old son has just finished his second climbing course, he's proven to be quite talented but he has a troublesome, a bit "weak" personality. He suffers competition with other kids at any level, and though physically talented, he suffers when he his asked to repeat a task to exhaustion. you just retired him from swimming for this very reason, he would stop mid-session and sit on the edge of the swimming pool with the coach screaming at him.
with climbing it was different.
The problem is that now he's too good for the wall that hosts the beginners courses, it would be a good idea if he just had someone that belays him on the "real" wall in town 2 afternoons a week.
But the person in charge for afternoons at the wall is the head coach of the youth team, who is 100% focused on his obsession for shaping the next wonderkid, and there is a consistent record of ex-athletes of him that suffer major injuries at age 20-25, many abandons, and even a couple of anorexic girls...
your 12 years old son has just finished his second climbing course, he's proven to be quite talented but he has a troublesome, a bit "weak" personality. He suffers competition with other kids at any level, and though physically talented, he suffers when he his asked to repeat a task to exhaustion. you just retired him from swimming for this very reason, he would stop mid-session and sit on the edge of the swimming pool with the coach screaming at him.
with climbing it was different.
The problem is that now he's too good for the wall that hosts the beginners courses, it would be a good idea if he just had someone that belays him on the "real" wall in town 2 afternoons a week.
But the person in charge for afternoons at the wall is the head coach of the youth team, who is 100% focused on his obsession for shaping the next wonderkid, and there is a consistent record of ex-athletes of him that suffer major injuries at age 20-25, many abandons, and even a couple of anorexic girls...
I don't suppose it's relevant in this day and age, but some of us were drawn to climbing precisely because it wasn't organised in any way.
I think your comments are entirely relevant. As a teenager I drifted out of organised sports into climbing precisely to get away from the men with clipboards. I find it deeply saddening how much climbing has drifted towards formality and organisation and yes, it is driven by money.
I also find myself increasingly questioning the role of the BMC itself. I was always under the impression it was a representative body which simply did things in the best interests of its members and did nothing to promote climbing as a sport. Technically this may still be the case but in reality this does not appear to be so.
The problem is the committee mentality. Once you set up a committee to deal with a problem it doesn't just sit there doing nothing until another problem arises. Committee men find things to do to justify their existence and set up more committees and sub-committees to do deal with the ever expanding number of issues they "have" to deal with.
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, or even ungrateful, I recognise that the BMC does do a lot of valuable stuff, but increasingly it seems to do more and more unnecessary stuff (not that you'd find a man with a clipboard who'd consider it unnecessary). There seems to be more and more time spent chasing pots of cash which requires jumping through government hoops, completing "equality" surveys and other such nonsensical manifestations of the tick box culture which has beset society.
Personally I'd rather see the BMC keep the government and other "official"
bodies (eg the IOC) at arms length. It should do what it can with the money its got and no more. Prioritising would keep it a lean and fitter organisation and not the increasingly bloated bureaucracy it is in danger of becoming.
Personally I regard the IOC as a morally bankrupt organisation who's members spend 4 years between Olympics travelling the world on bloated expenses accounts being lavished with hospitality that would turn a city banker green with envy.
They have lost all sight of the original Olympic ideal, the games have become a festival of commercialism, corporate sponsorship, drug abuse and sports science. They have lost all sight of the original Olympic ideals and the games lost its relevance several decades ago.
The BMC should steer well clear and focus upon what it was set up to do.
Is that a good enough rant?
>
> The organisation of climbing today has made it just another facet of homogenous consumer culture.
> The organisation of climbing today has made it just another facet of homogenous consumer culture.
I think your comments are entirely relevant. As a teenager I drifted out of organised sports into climbing precisely to get away from the men with clipboards. I find it deeply saddening how much climbing has drifted towards formality and organisation and yes, it is driven by money.
I also find myself increasingly questioning the role of the BMC itself. I was always under the impression it was a representative body which simply did things in the best interests of its members and did nothing to promote climbing as a sport. Technically this may still be the case but in reality this does not appear to be so.
The problem is the committee mentality. Once you set up a committee to deal with a problem it doesn't just sit there doing nothing until another problem arises. Committee men find things to do to justify their existence and set up more committees and sub-committees to do deal with the ever expanding number of issues they "have" to deal with.
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, or even ungrateful, I recognise that the BMC does do a lot of valuable stuff, but increasingly it seems to do more and more unnecessary stuff (not that you'd find a man with a clipboard who'd consider it unnecessary). There seems to be more and more time spent chasing pots of cash which requires jumping through government hoops, completing "equality" surveys and other such nonsensical manifestations of the tick box culture which has beset society.
Personally I'd rather see the BMC keep the government and other "official"
bodies (eg the IOC) at arms length. It should do what it can with the money its got and no more. Prioritising would keep it a lean and fitter organisation and not the increasingly bloated bureaucracy it is in danger of becoming.
Personally I regard the IOC as a morally bankrupt organisation who's members spend 4 years between Olympics travelling the world on bloated expenses accounts being lavished with hospitality that would turn a city banker green with envy.
They have lost all sight of the original Olympic ideal, the games have become a festival of commercialism, corporate sponsorship, drug abuse and sports science. They have lost all sight of the original Olympic ideals and the games lost its relevance several decades ago.
The BMC should steer well clear and focus upon what it was set up to do.
Is that a good enough rant?
In reply to redsulike: Anybody think the Olympics doesn't skew things?
Scroll down to the 12th paragraph of this link. http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3202
Scroll down to the 12th paragraph of this link. http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3202
In reply to pec: Care to elaborate. Are you for or against?
In reply to Graeme Alderson: Elaborate on which posting? Both the 2 previous postings are mine. I think the 1st makes my views quite clear!
In reply to pec: Sorry, only your 2nd message showed as un-read. Reading your 1st post makes your view perfectly clear
In reply to ghisino: this logic exists in my local swimming pool. when the swimming club have their training sessions half the pool gets laned off for their use, they pay no more than anyone else using the pool but the rest of the users get herded into the remaing area which usually causes loads of hassle and has caused me to leave the pool early several times. its not as if there are that good either.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...