UKC

Sport climbing is now Olympic...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 ashtond6 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

good god...

Selling point: "An unforgettable spectacle - fresh, young sport capitalising on the urban/action trend."
Removed User 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

I don't think this is a good thing =/
 climbwhenready 28 Sep 2015
In reply to ashtond6:

Urban action? Did they accidentally swap the paragraph with skateboarding?
 AJM 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

Excellent news.
5
 james mann 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

Will be like watching paint dry. Should make it like gladiators with contestants trying to rip each other off.
In reply to vollaard:

I think there is a significant difference here between being 'recommend as an Olympic sport' and actually being an Olympic sport. I think this just means that the host country has recommended these sports are included but a final decision hasn't been made yet.

Alan
 Chris the Tall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to james mann:

> Will be like watching paint dry.

So don't watch it - but I think non-climbers will find it more interesting than baseball, surfing, dressage etc etc
1
 Simon Caldwell 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

still don't understand how all these non-sports are getting through, but a proper sport like squash keeps being rejected
 Chris the Tall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

In the past they have had 8 events on a shortlist and selected just one (or two), but the reports imply that this is slightly different and that all 5 sports could be included. Amazed that Squash has missed out and think that climbing is more appropriate than the others - surfing and skateboarding being based on subjective judging, presume Karate is as well, and as for baseball....
 neuromancer 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

It's hard to make squash a sport people will pay enough to watch as it's pretty hard to get people close enough to watch it. Hence no money no popularity.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> In the past they have had 8 events on a shortlist and selected just one (or two), but the reports imply that this is slightly different and that all 5 sports could be included. Amazed that Squash has missed out and think that climbing is more appropriate than the others - surfing and skateboarding being based on subjective judging, presume Karate is as well, and as for baseball....

Yes, it is curious how the main articles I can find on this seem to all be a bit vague on whether or not these sports are actually going to be in the 2020 Olympics, they all just say 'recommended as...'. I suspect no-one has made the rules known yet.

The commission of squash seems bizarre. One might even suspect that the host nation have included sports they are good at, and omitted ones they aren't.

Alan
In reply to neuromancer:

> It's hard to make squash a sport people will pay enough to watch as it's pretty hard to get people close enough to watch it. Hence no money no popularity.

That's never been a big criteria for Olympic sports though, I mean some are incredibly slow and tedious - Archery, shooting, etc. Even the various sailing events only ever appear on highlights and seldom with a big crowd watching

Alan
 Ramblin dave 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> So don't watch it - but I think non-climbers will find it more interesting than baseball, surfing, dressage etc etc

Agreed. Competition climbing has very little to do with what a lot of people enjoy about climbing, but that seems to blind people to the fact that it actually has quite a lot to do with what a lot of people enjoy about watching non-mainstream sports: it's obvious what the contestants are trying to do, it's obvious why it's hard, and it's obvious whether they've succeeded or not. No fannying around with judges' scores, no getting penalized for obscure infractions that no-one understands, no motorbikes, no winning timegaps that can only be detected with an atomic clock, no winning strikes / shots / whatevers that happen faster than anyone can see.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

IOC Congress next year makes the decision as to which sports actually make it to Tokyo, so this is just another stepping stone, albeit quite a big step!

Yes, the choice was the host nations, based on such criteria as being able to put bums on seats, medal chances for the host nation and possibility of selling sponsorship. Baseball/softball are immensely popular in Japan. Japanese climbers very regular medalists at IFSC events.
1
 Rob Adie 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The IOC have increased the number of 'events' to 310 at Tokyo 2020 from 302 in London and 306 in Rio (with the addition of the new sports - Golf and Rugby sevens). So although this has not been confirmed yet there is effectively only space for 4 events or 2 sports (male and female in each) depending on how you look at it. The Tokyo organising committee have nominated 18 events so the IOC still have to reduce this list down by quite a bit next August. Climbing should have quite a good chance though with it being small numbers (note that the total athlete cap is 10500) and only 2 events.
 jkarran 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Removed User:

> I don't think this is a good thing =/

Why? I don't see how it can be a bad thing.
jk
 Chris the Tall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Rob Adie:

Baseball/Softball is an odd inclusion if there is a limit on the number of athletes - even if there are only 8 teams you'd still have over 100 athletes per event. Assuming they can find 8 countries to play baseball (turns out South Korea won it in 2008, and Cuba in 2004).

Know little about Karate, but wouldn't it be like all the other martial arts (and surely there are enough of them) and have lots of weight categories ?
Wiley Coyote2 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:
It's very noticeable in the par about each sport that nobody makes any pretence any of them are worthwhile compeitive activities. It's just 'this will drag the kids in so tv viewers will go up and we can flog even more advertising, sponsorship and cheap tat merchandise.' When was the Olympics last about sport? They could whittle it down to the 100m and the 1500m and ditch the rest without most people even noticing the rest had gone.

2
 Rob Adie 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Baseball is Japan's national sport so this was a given I think for the organising committee, I am not sure how the IOC will view it though based on like you say the lack of worldwide participation and the high number of athletes required from each country.

I think if my statement above is correct (note those numbers were based on the medal allocations from 2016 and 2020 off Wikipedia and they look correct based on the numbers alloted in the IOC's Agenda 2020 document) and the IOC stick to the 310 event limit then Karate may be ruled out just by the number of weight categories alone - unless the federation just propose one weight category.
Wiley Coyote2 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

>

> Know little about Karate, but wouldn't it be like all the other martial arts (and surely there are enough of them) and have lots of weight categories ?

I used to teach karate and I could not spot the difference between it and competition taekwando*, which is already an Olympic sport, I think

* Competition being as close to full study of a martial art as competition climbing is to the real deal
 streapadair 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

So bridge didn't make it, how very disappointing . . .
 climbwhenready 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

> Even the various sailing events only ever appear on highlights and seldom with a big crowd watching

Huh? The weekend medal races in 2012 were meant to have attracted 100,000 spectators.
 Chris the Tall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Some of us really like watching sport and find it inspiring. Some people prefer strictly or bake-off, but hey-ho. I know there's more to a 100m than start fast and go faster but to say that's the only thing worthwhile is rubbish. I like events which last a bit longer, are liable to have twists and turns, build up to a thrilling finish where the result is in question until the last minute. And judging should merely be about obeying the rules and not allocating points for styles - the audience should be able to follow directly, not indirectly if you see what I mean.

I've not seen a lead climbing comp. but the couple of bouldering comps I've seen were gripping (sorry for the pun), obvious and frequently came down to the last competitor having to climb the last problem to win - perfect drama.
 Ramblin dave 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

> It's very noticeable in the par about each sport that nobody makes any pretence any of them are worthwhile compeitive activities.

WTF constitutes a "worthwhile competitive activity"?
 Jim Walton 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The Olympic Moto is "Higher, Faster, Stronger". It is, with great regret, difficult to see how squash meets this criteria. The same can be said of many of the new sports.
 Chris the Tall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Jim Walton:

So climbing has a better claim than Tennis, Badminton, Football, Hockey, Diving, Dressage, Handball, Volleyball, Rythmic Gymnastic, Synch Swimming, archery.......
 Simon Caldwell 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Jim Walton:

That's their motto but it's not their definition of a sport. otherwise probably half* the current events would have to be excluded.

* this statistic is invented
 Eciton 28 Sep 2015
In reply to jkarran:

> Why? I don't see how it can be a bad thing.

Climbing at the Olympics lead to more people climbing indoor, which leads to more people climbing outdoor, which leads to overcrowded places (annoying in itself), which leads to higher pressure on natural systems, which lead to conflicts with nature conservation, which leads to (choose one): 1) degradation of these natural systems; 2) banning of climbing.

I sincerely hope I am wrong but I also do not see it a good thing to increase significantly the profile of climbing. In fact, today there are a lot of climbing crags highly affected by the number of climbers.
4
 Andy Say 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

And we have, of course, been here before. Not very long ago!

Climbing was on the shortlist last time for inclusion. But didn't make the cut as a demonstration sport and then inclusion..
 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

> I used to teach karate and I could not spot the difference between it and competition taekwando*, which is already an Olympic sport, I think

Taekwondo also benefits from an over-arching worldwide governing body for the sport (the amusingly acronymed World Taekwondo Federation). Karate on the other hand has always been a patchwork of competing national (and intra-national) organisations and styles marred by decades of political infighting. I suppose the same is true of many sports, however.

 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Eciton:

> I sincerely hope I am wrong but I also do not see it a good thing to increase significantly the profile of climbing. In fact, today there are a lot of climbing crags highly affected by the number of climbers.

I doubt that the many people who currently, or are intending to, make a living from climbing and its related ecosystem would agree with you that increasing participation would be a bad thing.

 Jim Walton 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'll not hear a bad thing said about Rythmic Gymnastics. Very very difficult to throw a stick in the air, fall over and then catch the stick.
1
 Ian W 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Jim Walton:

The other thing that gives hope to all prospective Olympic newcomers is the IOC's willingness to reduce the number of medals given out in existing sports for what are very similar disciplines (i.e. a swimmer can legitimately go for many, many medals, and look how they have changed the track cycling programme over recent games), so new sports can be included whilst staying within the 316 medal limit and 10,500 athlete limit. So a greater diversity of sports for the spectator, and benefits for a wide range of potential newcomers.
 Ramblin dave 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Jim Walton:

> The Olympic Moto is "Higher, Faster, Stronger". It is, with great regret, difficult to see how squash meets this criteria. The same can be said of many of the new sports.

Actually, I think competitive climbing fits surprisingly well with the general theme of Olympic events that are somewhat abstracted versions of hunting / fighting / getting around the place quickly skills. You could sort of imagine the ancient Greeks getting into it if the Bronze Age had given way to the Plastic Age.
 neuromancer 28 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm not sure I'm all for those people being the ones who take priority in our "ecosystem".

I think I'd prefer to maintain it as a sustainable sport for those who have the energy and drive to go and seek it out themselves. "But I want to be rich" isn't a particularly convincing counterargument for anyone but bastards.
1
 Ramblin dave 28 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

To be honest, I'm involved in a club that welcomes novices and based on what I see there I'd say that it's possible that loads of people might see Shauna Coxsey win an Olympic medal and be inspired to head down to their local wall for the next beginners session, and also possible that a small proportion of those people will actually stick with it as a long term hobby, but it's highly unlikely that particularly large numbers of them will then start overcrowding outdoor crags. Most of the people we get turning up of an evening mostly see indoor climbing as a more fun and more sociable alternative to going to the gym, not as a first step towards The Real Thing(tm).
 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

> "But I want to be rich" isn't a particularly convincing counterargument for anyone but bastards.

"Making a living". Not "I want to be rich".

1
 neuromancer 28 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:
Do you really think the few british IFMGAs or Adidas (aka 5.10) are the ones pushing the popularisation of Climbing?

Even if we ignore that it's about big business; which is more important to you - sustainable climbing for people who want to climb or jobs in climbing for people who don't want to get normal jobs?
Post edited at 17:30
 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

> which is more important to you - sustainable climbing for people who want to climb or jobs in climbing for people who don't want to get normal jobs?

What's a normal job? Doing something you can barely tolerate for 40 hours a week so that you can steal a few hours of precious free time at the weekend to do something you love? If increased participation in climbing allows people to earn a living doing something they actually enjoy, be it as a Guide or in the gear, equipment and tourism industries, I fail to see a downside.

What is sustainable? At what point did there become 'too many climbers', was it immediately after you decided to take it up? If so, and this is not pure selfishness on your part, perhaps you should stop to set a good example.

2
 JJL 28 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

I really don't want this to happen.

I like watching competitive indoor climbing... but I don't want to enthuse a whole bunch more people in the sport. Keeping it within the arena of people that already climb is fine; projecting to a not-previously-interested audience isn't.

It's selfish, but I don't want the crags any more crowded than they are. And I don't buy any arguments about how having more people will push standards. It might, but actually I don't care if cutting edge is 9b+ or 11a+. I climb HVS.

12
 hang_about 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Jim Walton:

> The Olympic Moto is "Higher, Faster, Stronger". It is, with great regret, difficult to see how squash meets this criteria. The same can be said of many of the new sports.

Have you ever played squash? It is quick and very athletic. It's not a great spectator sport (unless you're a keen player in which case it's unbelievable to watch the standard of play), but isn't sport about participating not watching? I'd rather go climbing than watch it.
Wiley Coyote2 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> WTF constitutes a "worthwhile competitive activity"?

Which of the three words are you having a problem with?
 neuromancer 28 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:
That is a reductio ad absurdum.

I'm obviously talking on the macro scale.

A huge jump in the popularity of climbing would have a net negative effect on the enjoyment the current climbing population experience in general due to overcrowding, access issues, and polish.

But it would open up job opportunities in the industry.

Which of those two do you think is more important to you? Which is more important for the pursuit in general?

It's a simple question, stop being so rude and pugilistic.
Post edited at 19:54
5
 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

> Which of those two do you think is more important to you? Which is more important for the pursuit in general?

It's a false dichotomy. Your assumption that an increase in popularity in climbing would be detrimental to the pursuit is by no means assured. Many enjoy the social aspect of climbing, and overcrowding can be managed - not everywhere has to be Stanage.

> It's a simple question, stop being so rude and pugilistic.

It wasn't rudeness, it was contempt.
3
 Ramblin dave 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> Which of the three words are you having a problem with?

"Worthwhile", mostly. Almost all sports are pointless - that's why we call them "sports" and not "useful life skills". And I don't really see why a pointless activity involving getting to the top of a bit of plywood is more or less "worthwhile" than a pointless activity involving chasing a ball around a field or lobbing a pointy stick further than anyone else.
Post edited at 20:39
 neuromancer 28 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:
Significantly less of one than your characterisation of popularity as "helping out the little guy", and jobs outside climbing as "something you can barely tolerate for 40 hours a week".

You do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about this job thing. Not everyone made the wrong decisions in life.

>contempt
>not rudeness

I'd offer you a dictionary but I fear you'd throw it at me. Or some other harmless recipient of your vitriol.

Night night.
Post edited at 21:09
1
Wiley Coyote2 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> "Worthwhile", mostly. Almost all sports are pointless

Ok, fair enough. By 'worthwhile' in the context of sport I'd say physical effort, strength and skill were essential so anything that requires a fixed grin (eg horse dancing, synchonised drowning, waving ribbons in pretty patterns) I'd give the elbow. i concede comp climbing therefore passes the test.
However, my point when i said that none of the arguements made any mention of the candidate sports' intrinsic sporting value was to flag up the fact that the proponents' key pitch was in very cynically saying 'kids like this'. The reason why I say cynically is that the motivation in each case seems to be to up the number of young people watching which increases the Olympics' value to Tv companies, advertisers and sponsors and so increases the money the organisers can pull in. The 'worth' of any of the sports as physical contests seems to be so utterly irrelevant that it does not rate a mention.
And if that's not enough cynicism for you, when I was an editor I was always being pushed to lower the age of the readership. In frustration i once asked a major ad buyer why they were so keen on younger readers when we were always being told that it was oldies who had all the money. His reply was that old people were smart and hung onto their cash but kids were, in his words, thick as pigsh1t and could be persuaded to buy any old cr4p.

 planetmarshall 28 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

No chip, and no vitriol. I enjoy my job, which has nothing to do with climbing, but affords me the opportunity to climb when I can.

I would like others to discover the pleasure of climbing that I have found, and I have no time for those who would deny others the same experience, out of pure selfishness, because they had it first and the exclusive climbing club is 'full up'.

2
 john arran 29 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I would like others to discover the pleasure of climbing that I have found, and I have no time for those who would deny others the same experience, out of pure selfishness, because they had it first and the exclusive climbing club is 'full up'.

I wish I could click the 'like' button more than once. Sometimes I wonder whether people have ended up on UKC by mistyping UKIP.
2
 jsmcfarland 29 Sep 2015
In reply to neuromancer:

You sound like an American libertarian..."I've got mine, why should anyone else have some?"
2
 Eciton 29 Sep 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I doubt that the many people who currently, or are intending to, make a living from climbing and its related ecosystem would agree with you that increasing participation would be a bad thing.

And that is ok. I am much more worried about the degradation of natural areas where we climb and/or the potential access issues that will result from a larger number of climbers in sensitive areas than with climbing related jobs. There will still exist climbing related jobs without climbing making into the Olympics, maybe fewer but then I do not see it as a major problem. Other opportunities exist for the people that will not make it to have a job related with climbing.

> I would like others to discover the pleasure of climbing that I have found, and I have no time for those who would deny others the same experience, out of pure selfishness, because they had it first and the exclusive climbing club is 'full up'.

Who is denying others the experience in discovering climbing? People can discover climbing with or without climbing in the Olympics. From my part there is certainly an element of selfishness by not liking crowded places. But I can live with that, but it worries me the impact that a significant increase in the number of climbers will have in natural areas. And here I am not being selfish.
2
 Eciton 29 Sep 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> it's highly unlikely that particularly large numbers of them will then start overcrowding outdoor crags. Most of the people we get turning up of an evening mostly see indoor climbing as a more fun and more sociable alternative to going to the gym, not as a first step towards The Real Thing(tm).

I hope you are right! I do not have any sort of clear evidence that relates the number of people climbing outdoors with the number of people climbing indoor. But look at the number of today's high profile climbers hat have started indoor (Honnold, Sharma), look at the number of still increasing indoor gyms. There has to be a relation between the number of people climbing indoor with the number of people climbing outdoor.

 Chris the Tall 29 Sep 2015
In reply to Eciton:

Is Mo Farah to blame for an increase in fell runners ? Do people see the 50k walk on the olympics and decide to go off to a ramble (probably, but less from inspiration and more from boredom).

Yes there will be people inspired to take up indoor climbing and go to their local walls, we may even get a few more walls built to cope with the demand, but don't assume that will translate to more people on the crag. More and more people seem to enjoy climbing as a merely athletic exercise without the need to grow a beard, buy a load of hexs and battle the elements and vegetation on our crags. And even if they do, they won't be going to the wild areas of which you speak.

Which I think is a pity, cos I think the world would be a better place if more people took outdoor exercise, saw the beauty of nature and our landscape. Sure I love it when I have an area all to myself, but not only is it selfish to keep that secret to myself, it's not good for society as a whole.
2
 Lemony 29 Sep 2015
In reply to vollaard:

Hang on, I thought the current vogue was to complain that not enough people were getting out trad climbing? On saturday we climbed all day and there were maybe 8-10 people on the whole crag.
1
 Eciton 29 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Is Mo Farah to blame for an increase in fell runners ? Do people see the 50k walk on the olympics and decide to go off to a ramble (probably, but less from inspiration and more from boredom).

I am not blaming anyone, just concerned with the impacts of more climbers in the future. An yes people get inspired and go out and do stuff (which is good). An example of this is trail running and ultra-trails.

> Yes there will be people inspired to take up indoor climbing and go to their local walls, we may even get a few more walls built to cope with the demand, but don't assume that will translate to more people on the crag. More and more people seem to enjoy climbing as a merely athletic exercise without the need to grow a beard, buy a load of hexs and battle the elements and vegetation on our crags. And even if they do, they won't be going to the wild areas of which you speak.

You seem to have a very limited view of what is climbing! Some people say that Sport climbing is only an "athletic exercise" so you do not need hexes and grow a bear to climb outside. And yes people go to these "wild" areas and many get impacted significantly, creating access issues. Go to Spain and you can see that easily. Albarracin is one example that come to my mind with important access issues (although it is only bouldering where you only need a red woolly hat and also no need for hexes!).

> Which I think is a pity, cos I think the world would be a better place if more people took outdoor exercise, saw the beauty of nature and our landscape. Sure I love it when I have an area all to myself, but not only is it selfish to keep that secret to myself, it's not good for society as a whole.

Totally agree with this. But it is also not good for Society as a whole to trash natural places, so a balance must be achieved. If some of these places can still take additional climbers remains to be seen (because of the olympics or other reason).

Just to be clear about increasing number of climbers because of the olympics, you are not worried, I am.


 Chris the Tall 29 Sep 2015
In reply to Eciton:

> You seem to have a very limited view of what is climbing!

On the contrary, I think that climbing is a broad church, and don't think that those who enjoy one aspect of it should stop others from enjoying a completely different element. For example, one argument used against the olympics when it was discussed at a BMC AGM was that the IOC banned drugs used by high altitude climbers.

When climbing competitions were first mooted, it's opponents claimed it would lead to bolting and chipping on our traditional crags. And there was that incident in the lakes, and an outdoor comp in France, but that was 30 years ago. Comps have established themselves as an activity done entirely on artificial structures. The sky hasn't fallen in. Yes climbing is more popular, but so are a lot of things and I don't think we should say its down to comps and indoor walls any more that we could blame UKC, rockfax, sticky rubber or bouldering mats.

Outdoor climbing, even sport, is still a long way removed from indoor comps. It's also a long way from climbing the Eiger. Should that be banned because it may encourage people to take up climbing (me for example) ?
 Chris the Tall 29 Sep 2015
In reply to Eciton:

Or put in another way:

"Sorry Mr Bonington, we aren't going to let you lead an expedition to Everest. You'll only go on Blue Peter, encourage people to start bouldering and before you know it we'll have to pay to park at Stanage Plantation"
In reply to Chris the Tall:

The quote was something along the lines of "Competition climbers are barbarians. Mark my words, the Nose will be bolted in no time" - Ken Wilson, Alpine Cub debate published the the Alpine Club Journal 1993 (or maybe 1994). I presume he was referring to Dinas Mor rather than El Capitan. And the people who he was slagging off were the likes of Fliss Butler and Lucy Creamer!
 hornbywill 09 Oct 2015
In reply to james mann:

Watching Adam Ondra have a rage session "on the world stage"
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> still don't understand how all these non-sports are getting through, but a proper sport like squash keeps being rejected

Or netball.
In reply to climbwhenready:

> Urban action? Did they accidentally swap the paragraph with skateboarding?

Or parkour...
 nathan79 09 Oct 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Without a doubt. Diving, dressage, rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming aren't even sports. Wonderfully skillfull and artistic activities but not sports by a long shot.
1
 james mann 09 Oct 2015
In reply to hornbywill:

Would quite like to see that will.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...