/ Competition sport climbing for 2020

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sonya Mc on 20 Oct 2012
If you'd like to see sport climbing become part of Olympics 2020 then please follow this link and vote for sport climbing.

http://tinyurl.com/8r9epd5

Now, I know a lot of you die hard trad climbers and non wall goers really don't get competition climbing but remember this, these kids and young adults LOVE climbing (indoor and out *and* some love trad also) and there is simply just not the funding for comp climbers. More funding would mean a higher standard and a higher standard of indoor climbing and training DOES bring reaped benefits to outdoor climbing (stronger, fitter climbers)

Please vote and post the link on your facebook accounts if you have one. Show the Olympic committee that sport climbing would be a brilliant inclusion :o)
jimtitt - on 20 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:
"According to Scolaris [president of the IFSC], “Although a big part of the climbing population climb in the gym, another big part of the climbing population climbs in nature, on rock, in the mountains, on the beach, wherever a rock exists.” It is, he says, an area the IOC has yet to exploit."

That statement may well come back to haunt Mr Scolaris in the future!
A vote for competition climbing (sport climbing is something completely different) is giving implicit support to his concept that the IOC will (or should) exploit outdoor climbing.
I voted for squash as there is no `NO´ button.
Doug on 20 Oct 2012
In reply to jimtitt: likewise, when I read phrases such as "drastically increase its ability to reach outside its key markets" I wonder what the real motivation is
john arran - on 20 Oct 2012
In reply to jimtitt:

I know what you mean. I'd personally love to see climbing included but those quotes are so awful I'm wondering what he may be prepared to sacrifice in order to make it happen. Very worrying terminology.
jimtitt - on 20 Oct 2012
In reply to john arran:

Certainly a bit of an eye-opener if this is the official thinking of the IFSC (as it is an interview with the president one assumes so). I doubt I could have done as effective hatchet job if I´d tried and all without mentioning Red Bull and McDonalds!
Like a large number of climbers I´m not particularly bothered either way about competition climbing either in or outside of the Olympics, it´s just a minor subset of climbing in general like dry-tooling which as long as it doesn´t directly effect me is basically of no interest. In that respect previously I´d have been an inactive supporter by default.

“Climbers are part – or maybe the leading part – of a huge outdoor community that includes hikers, mountaineers, ramblers, etc,” he continues, “and this, in my opinion, is an area in which the IOC or the Olympic values are not really represented. So maybe from a marketing point of view this would be interesting for the IOC, which may also consider that recently, in the last couple of years, we have seen the interest of the wider sport industry moving into the outdoors.”

The man who said that is either a complete fool or a meglomaniac, either way he is running competition climbing. One can only imagine what the Ramblers Association, Seirra Club and et al think of the prospect of the IOC, the Olympic ideals and it´s subsequent marketing becoming involved in hiking, rambling and mountaineering.
RupertD - on 20 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:
> More funding would mean a higher standard and a higher standard of indoor climbing and training DOES bring reaped benefits to outdoor climbing (stronger, fitter climbers)
>

I'm not against comp climbing, but I'm not sure what the reaped benefits of lots more stronger/ fitter climbers will be to outdoor climbing. It's not like we've got hundreds of futuristic crags waiting for the next generation. More likely will be packed crags and access problems at the few decent sport crags we've got. Access problems have already started at these crags due to popularity.

ERH - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:

I agree with the others above about the IOC keeping their grubby corporate hands off real rock.

Also, I wonder how some of the comp climbers will enjoy the IOC drugs rules about random drugs testing and weed being a banned substance :)
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc: Sport Climbing would not be a good Olympic Sport. Most climbers find it boring to watch let alone the general public who won't be able to relate to it at all.
fred99 - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:
In all sports in the "Olympic village", there is far too much meddling by our government in the governance of these sports.
This ensures that all the effort goes into subsidising medal prospects, and very little into the grass roots - clubs, facilities, etc..
If sport climbing became part of the Olympic set-up, then we would find the BMC spending most of its (NO - OUR) money and time on this aspect.
We would also find our (BMC) membership fees hiked in order to continue subsidising the team and its hangers-on (coaches, managers, physios, etc.).

I'll never vote for any aspect of Climbing/Mountaineering to become part of the Olympics, and will also support whatever other activity looks like being a front-runner in order to ensure this.
Tom Last - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:

The current frontrunner is rollersports incidentally.
Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Southern Man: Wow there is some vitriol out there. Some of it based on inaccurate assumptioms as well.
Ciro - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to fred99:

If the BMC stops being of use to the bulk of it's members, are we not likely to vote with our feet and leave?

I reckon there's enough people in this country with a genuine interest in the outdoors for non-commercial reasons, to ensure we'll always have an organisation who's main concern is our access to mountains and crags - whether that be the BMC or another club who comes along in their stead.
Doug on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Graeme Alderson: but in large part due to the comments by the president of the IFSC
fred99 - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to Southern Man) Wow there is some vitriol out there. Some of it based on inaccurate assumptioms as well.

Not vitriol, just experience.
Not inaccurate assumptions - more experience.

Last time this was brought up, you were all for it - but then you run an indoor climbing wall, and stand to gain financially from climbing making the Olympics.
fred99 - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Ciro:
Why should we all leave the BMC - which has our money, input to various organisations, and the insurance.
Why not chuck out the competition section instead - then they can enjoy themselves without us nasty mountaineers/recreational climbers causing them any upset.
Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to fred99:
> (In reply to Graeme Alderson)
> Not inaccurate assumptions - more experience.
>
> Last time this was brought up, you were all for it - but then you run an indoor climbing wall, and stand to gain financially from climbing making the Olympics.

Well there we go with at least one inaccurate assumption, that my support for competitions is because I might financially gain if climbing makes the Olympics. Great how you can can cast aspertions without any knowledge.

Ciro - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to fred99:

I didn't say we should leave - I said *if* they change we should leave. I'd kinda hope knowing that they'd be alienating the majority of their members would stop them from doing so, but that's kinda how a club works - if you like what it does you join and if you stop liking what it does you leave.

Personally, I'm already a little ambivalent towards the BMC, after I paid £60 for a week of mountain rescue insurance from them this summer, and would have needed to give them another £40 for a mountain hut reciprocal rights card, and then discovered the austrian alpine club includes both of these in a £45 annual membership...
Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to fred99:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> Why not chuck out the competition section instead - then they can enjoy themselves without us nasty mountaineers/recreational climbers causing them any upset.

Maybe because the BMC Areas debated this a year or 2 ago and voted to support the attempt to get into the Olympics.

And maybe because climbers who do comps are climbers. They are not merely 'plastic climbers' as Mr Wilson used to label them.

Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Ciro/fred99:
> Personally, I'm already a little ambivalent towards the BMC, after I paid £60 for a week of mountain rescue insurance from them this summer, and would have needed to give them another £40 for a mountain hut reciprocal rights card, and then discovered the austrian alpine club includes both of these in a £45 annual membership...

Well there you go, it appears that supporting the BMC's work on access and other things is not what it is all about. It's about the bottom line.

robinsi197 - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to jimtitt:

I read the Scolaris statement, and to me it says "Please vote for this so that we can use competition climbing to commercialise climbing 'wherever a rock exists'".

I don't like competition climbing much myself, but other people do so good luck to them and long may it continue. However, the Scolaris statement makes me so angry I've voted for Karate (currently up there with Roller sports at around 40% each to sports climbings 3%)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ciro - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Perhaps I phrased that a bit badly - I'm still a member and I don't intend to withdraw my membership, but I won't be using their services above and beyond that any more, having discovered it's a tenth of the price elsewhere.

If the continue to use my membership fee in the manner they do now, they'll continue to get it, if they become a high fee competition climbing club as Fred suggests then they won't.
Ramblin dave - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Ciro:
As I understand it, the BMC expect that if sport climbing became an Olympic sport then it'd start getting much more sponsorship and government money funneled in to team coaching etc so they wouldn't have to divert money from (say) access funds to supporting an Olympic team. I've not read an official statement of their position, though, and I'd be interested to see one.

Regarding that article thing, yeah, it does read absolutely awfully. It sounds like he's pitching it to the IOC as "here's why climbing would be a commercial draw" but in a manner more or less calculated to piss off most climbers, by basically treating any remaining vestiges of simple uncommercialized enjoyment as being an untapped opportunity for marketeers. Yuk, no thanks.
Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Ciro: Fair enough (although I can't work out your maths)

But one of my points was that suggestions such as the one you refer to by fred99 aren't necessarily based on any facts whatsover.

Adidas sponosring the KMFF this year anyone. Or them buying FiveTen.
Ciro - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to Ciro) Fair enough (although I can't work out your maths)

I was being slightly generous in my maths - a year's worldwide alpine insurance to 6500m with BMC is over £500, with AAC it's included in a £43 membership. Now I know the levels of cover will not be identical, but they surely can't differ by a factor of 10? And if they do, why doesn't the BMC have a "no frills" option?

> But one of my points was that suggestions such as the one you refer to by fred99 aren't necessarily based on any facts whatsover.

I agree - I find it unlikely the BMC would abandon it's core membership like that, I was just pointing out that if we did we could walk away.
winhill - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> (In reply to Ciro)
>
> Regarding that article thing, yeah, it does read absolutely awfully. It sounds like he's pitching it to the IOC as "here's why climbing would be a commercial draw" but in a manner more or less calculated to piss off most climbers, by basically treating any remaining vestiges of simple uncommercialized enjoyment as being an untapped opportunity for marketeers. Yuk, no thanks.

I think this is based on a mis-reading of the statement, possibly based on a (UK centric???) false indoor/outdoor dichotomy.

All Scolaris is doing is hitting the IOC hot buttons, Youth, Accessibility, Participation, Health, Environment etc. These are the issues that the IOC cream themselves over, and Scolaris is saying that Sport Climbing has an ability to deliver these across a much wider population than roller skating or synchronised swimming.

It's a fairly reasonable argument, something highly specialised sports will find difficult to counter, whether individual BMC members have an interest in increasing participation, accessibility etc is a different argument.
jimtitt - on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to fred99)
> [...]
>
> Maybe because the BMC Areas debated this a year or 2 ago and voted to support the attempt to get into the Olympics.
>
> And maybe because climbers who do comps are climbers. They are not merely 'plastic climbers' as Mr Wilson used to label them.

However the membership of the BMC can if they wish change the policy. At the time of the debate it was not as clear what the end-objectives or thinking of the upper echelons of the IFSC was. Now it is considerably clearer and I´m fairly sure if Mr Scolari´s statements were put in a motion to the BMC´s members the decision would be different.

As a senior activist and/or functionary in the IFSC you should be able to answer these two simple questions:-
Does Mr Scolari´s position as outlined in the interview reflect current IFSC thinking and attitudes?
If not does the IFSC have sufficient control over its executive?

As the BMC is a member of the IFSC the BMC´s members (and the non-members who´s interests they represent) will be interested to know, without dodging the issue by discussing vitriol, corporate takeovers in the outdoor industy or Ken Wilson.
Graeme Alderson on 21 Oct 2012
In reply to jimtitt:
> (In reply to Graeme Alderson)
> [...]
>
> However the membership of the BMC can if they wish change the policy. At the time of the debate it was not as clear what the end-objectives or thinking of the upper echelons of the IFSC was. Now it is considerably clearer and I´m fairly sure if Mr Scolari´s statements were put in a motion to the BMC´s members the decision would be different.

It is great that you are able to speak on behalf of the BMC's membership. Please advise me how to vote at the next AGM.

>
> As a senior activist and/or functionary in the IFSC you should be able to answer these two simple questions:-

No, as you should be aware I am not authorised to comment on IFSC policy as I am a functionary f the IFSC. However as I am also the BMC's Rep at the IFSC Plenary Assembly I can assure you that I have always sought advice from the BMC on how I should vote on the BMC's behalf.

> As the BMC is a member of the IFSC the BMC´s members (and the non-members who´s interests they represent) will be interested to know, without dodging the issue by discussing vitriol, corporate takeovers in the outdoor industy or Ken Wilson.

Agreed, so why are you dodging the issue, talking as if the BMC has not already voted through it's Area Meeting structure. The BMC has a relatively decent form of democracy yet you are suggesting that a few voices should over-rule the system.
jkarran - on 22 Oct 2012
In reply to jimtitt:

> “Climbers are part – or maybe the leading part – of a huge outdoor community that includes hikers, mountaineers, ramblers, etc,” he continues, “and this, in my opinion, is an area in which the IOC or the Olympic values are not really represented. So maybe from a marketing point of view this would be interesting for the IOC, which may also consider that recently, in the last couple of years, we have seen the interest of the wider sport industry moving into the outdoors.”

> The man who said that is either a complete fool or a meglomaniac, either way he is running competition climbing. One can only imagine what the Ramblers Association, Seirra Club and et al think of the prospect of the IOC, the Olympic ideals and it´s subsequent marketing becoming involved in hiking, rambling and mountaineering.

I must be a bit hard of thinking today but I don't see what I'm missing in this. By my reading all that's being said here is that there's a large group of people interested in the outdoors who do not have an Olympic sport with which they can engage. I really must be missing something here since everyone else seems so horrified.

jk
tony on 22 Oct 2012
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
> (In reply to Sonya Mc) Sport Climbing would not be a good Olympic Sport. Most climbers find it boring to watch let alone the general public who won't be able to relate to it at all.

Whereas dressage ....
Iain Peters - on 22 Oct 2012
In reply to Sonya Mc:

I'm with Jim on this one, although my main interest is and always has been trad climbing/mountaineering.

That said, I have absolutely no problem with indoor climbing becoming an Olympic sport, and I acknowledge that many young people are attracted to it, but there are a few points that need to be clarified IMO.

First the IFSC does not represent "sport climbers," it is the governing body for competitive sport climbers, and is the regulator for that sport. The BMC is NOT a governing or regulatory body and never has been. It represents all British climbers, mountaineers etc. and is largely funded by the membership. Surely the time has now come when British competitive sport climbers should have their own national governing body under the auspices of the IFSC, in other words a British Federation of Competition Climbing, affiliated to the BMC but completely separate from it?

I wouldn't even object if the BMC offered financial and logistic assistance in setting up such an organization.

Secondly, equestrianism and canoeing have their own separate governing and representative bodies, both of which are extremely successful in their own fields of interest.

Keeping our crags, hills and coastline open for recreation will become increasingly time-consuming and expensive. The threat of draconian H&S legislation over-riding our right to roam will require a strong and focussed representative body acting in our interests. We may even be faced with having to purchase more crags. The argument that having a high-profile Olympic sport under the aegis of the BMC will produce extra government funding, major sponsorship deals and increased income for access and conservation is highly unlikely, in fact it would probably lead to a requirement for a far greater outflow of members' cash.

Finally, mention has been made on this and other threads about the democratic process via BMC Area Meetings and the Council. All these are fine when the discussions are about local issues, but I've attended a few in the SW and if we get 30 people at a meeting that's considered a bonus. Hardly representative of local climbers, let alone national. Once all the facts are known, the BMC should be totally transparent about the issue and then ballot not only the membership but the entire climbing community.

Olympic climbing under a British Federation? Yes. BMC direct involvement? No
robinsi197 - on 22 Oct 2012
In reply to winhill:
>
> All Scolaris is doing is hitting the IOC hot buttons, Youth, Accessibility, Participation, Health, Environment etc. These are the issues that the IOC cream themselves over, and Scolaris is saying that Sport Climbing has an ability to deliver these across a much wider population than roller skating or synchronised swimming.
>

I'm not sure he's doing such a great job of hitting the buttons of Youth, Accessibility, Participation, Health, Environment, as none of those words appear in the interview. The words we do see are Growth (2), Market(ing) (2) and Industry (1), which are the language of business development. That makes me a consumer in his 'key markets in western Europe...'. No thank you.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.