UKC

It seems to be an increasing trend these days to report the youngest ascent of either the hardest routes or the boldest routes. Why are we as a community promoting this stance?
If we take the position that as an adult we have the capacity to decide to put ourselves into dangerous situations and hopefully have the maturity to appreciate the impact a serious injury may have upon our lives, family and work etc, a child does not. As a parent we are making capacity decisions on their behalf, knowingly placing them in potential harm's way. Just because it may be a sports climb as opposed to say a head point, it does not mean that it is entirely risk free. I appreciate there are other activities in which this happens, but are we collectively sharing the responsibility, (if in the worse case scenario a fatality occurs) , by applauding these achievements? This is just an ethical question open to the floor!!............ I'll get me coat.

In reply to string arms:

If all the fat kids that sit on Playstations all evening went down the climbing wall instead the world would be a much better place.

In reply to string arms:


Reporting is not the same as applauding. It's news. UKC report it. People can take "responsibility" for applauding if they see fit........... and others can criticise if they see fit.

In reply to string arms:

Sounds like someone is jealous they're being burnt off by kids in primary school.

In reply to string arms:

I like it

- Topical
- At least a week since the last discussion
- Not just a one sentence starter
- Some sense in what is said

I'll put my neck out and say 4/10

In reply to string arms:
Hmmm, I don't think you're going to get a very good reception with this...

But I tend to agree. I think the fact that there's money and status to be made from this stuff makes me concerned that some parents have that as a concern (look at the recent kid up Everest thread for example). However I think UKC has little to no impact on this and taking a stance to not report these things would be pointless really.

But I share your concern. And it is replicated through other sports too, with kids suffering negative consequences of over training and injuries due to pushy parents, and it'd be a shame if it increased and happened in climbing too.

In reply to string arms:

Children get involved in lots of sports and many have risks. Should we stop them playing football because broken legs are common? Stop them doing horse riding, athletics, ice skating, hockey. everything else?

In climbing at least the safety part is directly in control of the belayer (generally an adult on these top end projects).

Also you're making an assumption that there is big risk involved generally - I've not seen any articles of "8 year old completes extreme highball solo". In a lot of climbing the risks can be managed down to pretty low.

In reply to string arms:
It's important to note that Jack's Dad explicitly told me not to focus on the 'youngest ascent' element, but instead on the fact that his sons simply love climbing, which I think comes across in each of the reports we've written about their climbs and in real life through meeting the family.

With Ollie's Old Man of Hoy report, the real achievement is getting to the top of an iconic climb and raising over £3,500 for people less fortunate than him, surely. From contacting Ollie and his father it's clear to me that that was the main drive to do it - the fact that he's younger than Leo was at the time provided Ollie with a challenge to begin with, but both Ollie and Ben acknowledge the wider benefits of taking part in something like this.

The mainstream media will use the 'youngest ascent' headline as it is easier to understand from a non-climber's perspective, perhaps. As climbers, many would agree that children can climb well and in many cases harder than adults. To non-climbers, it might seem particularly surprising that a 10 year old could climb a sea stack - is this not a perception that we should try to change? I agree that competitive risk-taking shouldn't be encouraged, but I don't see it in either of these cases.

In reply to string arms:
I think you've muddled two things. One is climbing generally and the other dangerous routes. General climbing is simply not that dangerous. I heard an interview with a US coach who coaches children primarily and he was saying how much more dangerous football (American) was than climbing. American football sees regular fatalities of child athletes.

I tend to agree that promoting/pushing children on dangerous routes is definitely a bit dodgy, especially when a lot of the impetus is coming from overambitious parents.

But on the other hand there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. That is there aren't regular serious injuries or deaths from climbing accidents involving children so maybe there's not much to worry about.

In reply to string arms:

I have to say this video I think is on very shaky ground and a very experienced climbing friend of mine thought the same. It's possible the route is not as dangerous as it's made out. I don't know, but if it is I suspect this is the kind of thing you mean and I tend to agree.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=3070

In reply to string arms:

as a father, i'm completely happy if my little one likes the outdoors, moving around and of course climbing. i have no interest to either press her into anything competitive, exuberantly risky, or documented ... she may do this as soon she can decide herself.

In reply to string arms:
There is a big difference between a child doing raindogs and a child doing death routes on slate.

One has no risk
One has unbelievable risk which imo the child cannot calculate

In reply to stp:

When you say the video is on shaky ground, what exactly do you mean? That it shouldn't have been made?

In reply to string arms:

Am I allowed to state that I have no opinion?

In reply to ashtond6:





Ha. No risk? You should have seen one of his falls. Came off trying to clip the 4th and nearly hit the ground on rope stretch. Sport climbing is not free of risk. Same goes for climbing trees.

In reply to ashtond6:



There is always some risk. That kid who died because the quickdraws had been assembled wrongly?

Probably less risk that getting driven to the crag though.

In reply to stp:



OK, I am just a little bit worried about this one but I think we should distinguish between a young person of 16 or 17 making their own decisions in a fully adult way without any parental pressure or even involvement as far as the video shows (he's belayed by his slightly older sister I presume) and a 9 or 10 year old with dad in attendance. A video of a 9 or 10 year old attempting this climb would be worrying indeed.

Interesting to know what Pete's view of this teenage adventure is now, with so much more experience behind him. Does he see it with hindsight as a bit too risky, or as an important formative experience?

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

>

It's his mum! Poised to do a quick jump back should he come off the lower section. The whole family is in attendance for the ascent.

In reply to shark:

Meant no risk quite loosely Shark
Compared to a E7 with easy climbing where one mistake could mean death or serious injury, sport climbs are quite different!

In reply to ashtond6:

The ground is just as hard. Seriously sport climbing is risky just not as risky. The risks are more from constant falling (therefore greater reliance on gear and belayer) and complacency and silly mistakes. Having a mindset that its not risky makes it more risky.

In reply to shark:

Fair point well made

In reply to string arms:

I'm awaiting the report of the first 3 year old to climb Indian face.

Solo.

In reply to string arms:

Your post is worthy of the following:

Get in the sea!

In reply to shark:

This tragic story perfectly illustrates your point , the death of Tito Traversa (12)

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68190

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Point taken, although I guess lots of UKCers have kids who "simply love climbing" and lots of folk young and old raise money.

I guess I'm just a bit more interested in adult climbing news though, if I'm honest.

In reply to string arms:

The Num Num children have honed their athletic and speed climbing skills escaping from shop security guards and the babylon. They're well aware of the dangers of being caught. I don't need to tell them.

In reply to string arms:

I don't know why your post has so many 'dislikes'. There is an important ethical and legal debate to be had. A 9 year old is by definition a child and therefore not competent to consent to the risks of climbing such a route. Obviously competence is a fluid concept ( and i am not talking about his technical competence as a climber) but it is highly unlikely a child of nine years can adequately weigh up the risks he is putting himself at. Risks are not only physical, such as taking a ground fall, but from the intensity of training to climb at such a level whilst still growing and this may have lifelong effects. We must not forget the psychological/emotional aspects of this type of activity at this level too. This relates to all sporting activity and there are many more sports which cause morbidity in children than climbing - rugby/ icehockey/horse riding etc. It all boils down to whether his rights as a child are being infringed by his sporting achievement - and its a brilliant effort. Wish i could climb like that.

In reply to string arms:

Down with this sort of thing!

In reply to Tom Last:

Nothing is risk free. I played Rugby until 16 (late 80s - mid 90s) and count myself lucky to get away with a chipped tooth and broken finger. I dont think risk was ever explicitly set out or discussed. Incidentally, the club I played for had one youth player drop dead from an undiagnosed heart condition, another broke his neck when a scrum went tits up. I think that as climbing is pretty in your face with heights and falls, which most people are hard wired to fear, risk is acknowledged, talked about and managed loads more than other sports.

In reply to womblingfree:

It's not just the risk for me, it the dynamic between risk and why it's being done - pressure from parents/commercial interests/whatever...? That's why the comparisons with just normal kids activities aren't valid to me.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:


Which you seem to have ignored since your article starts "9 year old Jack..."

In reply to Tom Last:


careful now

In reply to tjekel:

You may be allowing your child to make decisions.
Unfortunately at crags, and especially indoor walls I regularly see parents pushing their children, often to the point of tears. I am talking about small children, not the 15+ age group, who are old enough to know (Old fogey confession, I was working full time by 16!). I have friends who do this and I avoid climbing near them. A terrified (not just fearful, which is good) child being told off for their fear is not the way to treat them but is quite a common occurence.

In reply to johncook:

our kids generally do 2 or 3 different sports a week, they drop some for 6mths and pick up others. We see some parents who are clearly hot housing their kids into a specific sport and whilst they might be good at it, they certainly don't look like it's always fun. Parents trying to live their dreams through their kids.

In reply to summo:

I lived in the USA for 7 years and it is even more intense there for the kids. Watching obese parents pushing their (often unhappy and crying) kids to athletic extremes, when standing and walking makes them breath heavily was not unusual. I am seeing the UK climbing scene going that way and it upsets me. As with you my kids (now grown up!) were allowed to try anything. It sometimes got expensive when we spent many £'s on equipment, for them to give it up within weeks, but that is what parenting was all about.
Continue doing what you are doing with your kids. They will thank you later, unlike some of the hot-housed kids I saw in the USA who hated their parents by their mid teens.

In reply to johncook:


This is certainly not by any means always the case. It is inspiring at Ratho to see so many children really enjoying their climbing with both parents and instructors, pushing themselves and climbing amazingly hard but clearly having loads of fun with their friends too. Maybe some walls or areas have a different culture.

In reply to johncook:

To go back to the original context, though, while it's clearly not great for the kids I don't think that pushy parents pressurizing their kids to climb harder indoors or on sport is remotely the same thing as pushy parents pressurizing their kids to climb harder on bold trad outdoors.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I agree, there are a lot of children who are really enjoying themselves, but also an increasing number of hot-house, miserable children around.
A good coach will extract the best from a person without reducing them to tears, especially children. I frequently reduce myself to (almost) tears, but that is my choice, and self inflicted.
Saw a father (who was struggling to breathe after the walk up he was so unfit) aggressively berating his two 7/8/9/10 year old children because they couldn't get up a thuggish HVS in Stanage. A crack which is overhanging and as wide as my big hands will cope with. Many tears were shed by the children but no softening of attitude. He reckoned that they were enjoying it! They were shaking their heads behind his back. Hope he reads this and remembers the guy who suggested he let them climb a more reasonable route and who he told to "F**k off" when his children leave home at the first opportunity, absolutely hating him!

In reply to Robert Durran:


I've seen both. Some children having a great time climbing, and children in tears. In one case my wife was climbing a line and had to try to calm down the kid on the line next to it out of common humanity! While his mother was reasonable, his dad wasn't going to let him down unless he climbed to the top. The poor thing was terrified.

Surely the trick is you only do it while it's fun...

In reply to climbwhenready:

But where's the fun in that. If it doesn't hurt and make you work, its not fun. (AKA Type II & III 'fun').

If everything was Type I fun, it would soon get very dull and cease being fun at all. Or put another way, you need a lot of Type II, and a bit of Type III, to maximize the enjoyment of Type I.


Edit: I wouldn't advocate proper Type III for pre-teen kids!, but good doses of Type II builds resilience: I want my kids to be resilient, its a great life asset.

In reply to ChrisJD:

OK - I'm aware of Type 2 fun - stuff that's fun to look back on when it's over - usually when warm and holding a beer. But what is type 3 fun ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

https://kellycordes.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/

Type III Fun – not fun at all, not even in retrospect. As in, “What the hell was I thinking? If I ever even consider doing that again, somebody slap some sense into me.”

In reply to Chris the Tall:

When it is never fun - even looking back

In reply to ChrisJD:

That's fine, but I've seen parents climbing and skiing, who aren't sufficiently experienced to make decisions over what their child might find challenging, but doable and gain a great thrill from after having achieved it. Versus something that is either mentally or physically beyond them, killing both motivation and any parent / child trust.

I potentially waited more years than I needed to take the kids down red and black ski runs, but the mile wide grin and confidence boost from having breezed it, showed my patience was worth it. Better to not push, than scare off.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I think there's a difference between Type II fun - which is achieved by providing motivation and encouragement - and what a lot of parents do at the walls, which is guaranteed to put their little'uns off climbing forever.

In reply to Martin Hore:


Firstly I'm not sure that 16 is considered fully adult. Legally you're not allowed to drive a car and we all tend to be more reckless at that age. I lost two school friends, one 16 and one 17, in motorcycle accidents with no other vehicles involved. This recklessness is also reflected in the price of motor insurance for this age group.

However in this video the mother is actually encouraging him on. Parents are of course the most powerful people in our lives and we look up to them as authority figures. My friend likened the relationship with that of Andy Murray and his mother. But of course if Murray messes up his backhand in an important match the consequences aren't quite as severe.



Do you really think you'd get an honest answer?

In reply to stp:

Hmm, I think with his considerable (putting it mildly!) level of experience he was capable of making his own decisions. He was going to go for it anyway. Not sure how him going out to do the route with a mate and no family present would have been 'better'.

In reply to ChrisJD:

For kids initially it has to be type I. If it isn't fun at the time they won't get into it.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The trick is then sneaking in the Type II to toughen the little buggers up

In reply to string arms:

It seems the Chinese have a head start: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/27/worlds-most-dangerous-school-r...

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I think going out with just a mate means he would feel fully responsible for his actions. I think the addition of a parental figure is significant. If they say what you are doing is right or OK then that's a green light. Our parents always know best is thinking that we're pretty much hard wired to believe.

In reply to string arms:

I am loving this thread

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


But there'd be no cake left when I got there.

In reply to ChrisJD:


You mean like DofE expeditions? Can't have been that bad or I wouldn't be doing the Highlander MM next weekend...

In reply to stp:

Good point. I think what you say makes sense if we're talking about e.g. a first hard headpoint but considering how much Pete had done prior to this, a fair bit I'm sure without parents present, I find it harder to make that judgement.

In reply to string arms:

>Why are we reporting children's ascents on UKC?


'We' aren't.

'They' are.

You can ignore if you like?

In reply to Scarab9:


Really? No risks that the belayer cannot control?

In reply to johncook:


I watched an Italian parent on a crag near Bergamo trying to 'train' his kid to take lead falls by shoving him up hard routes. It was really upsetting to watch; the kid was traumatised and in tears.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Disagree. We exposed our kids to type II early (camping in a snowstorm that blew one of the tents down aged 5, hiking 150 km through Sarek national park aged 9, 2200 m ascents up Zugspitze aged 11, ....). If you don´t teach them that type II is also fun they will never get into it. Both my girls who have now left for university have grown up to become keen hikers who are not deterred when the weather craps out. I am really proud of my younger one who had just turned 17 when she took three of her friends to Norway, and was able to deal with most bridges on the hiking trail having been washed away (just walk up the river until it becomes small enough to wade, usually right below the glacier).

Not likely that you get into these type II activities after sitting on your sofa until the UKC collective considers you old enough. That said, the sight of three year olds playing on exposed ledges while their parents climb some sandstone route here in Saxony still scares me shitless. Realistically, though, I have not heard of a single accident in all the years i have been living round here, and the confidence with which you see just slightly older children move over exposed scrambling ground is impressive.


CB

In reply to Andy Say:


I've experienced similar. Except it was my wife shoving me up hard routes. A hard determined woman.

In reply to string arms:

I commented on this topic on Friday and then deleted it. Oh what the hell, here goes

In response to the original post there are 2 answers

1) It is interesting to read about these fascinating climbs which push the envelopes of young climbers. This young lad is the same age as my daughter and its good to read about what her age group are achieving.

2) Sponsorship. This site runs on it. Young climber are getting it. Features are based on it. Training plans are geared towards it. In fact, as a newcomer to climbing it is rather amazing how everything revolves around it.

I havent gone back to the article but i know the lad is sponsored. I will bet a pound to a pinch of poo there is a tag line about who he is sponsored by and paying homage to it. The sponsor will enjoy the feedback. The website will gain brownie points with sponsor for future advertising etc and everyone is happy.

In reply to stp:




I suspect you may because he may well tell you to do one, you can't presume that unless he agrees with you that it's not an honest answer.

In reply to JayPee630:
I have registered today solely to offer my perspective on some of the points made. Let me introduce myself, I am the parent of a child who climbs (a lot), I am not fat and I don't climb (much) and I'm sure my views will be welcomed, given the inclusive and diverse sport I keep getting told climbing is. So here we go.

Adults don't have a monopoly on drive and passion, a child is more than capable of having both. A child can love climbing, a child can have the drive to push themselves in this sport just like any other physical activity.

The above being the case, making even qualified comment about 'pushy parents', 'hot housing' and 'tearful and frightened children' in a thread where specific children are referenced can be seen as judging those specific children, their parents, the child's relationship with their parents and their parenting. I'd hope this is not the intention but reading the thread it seems that for a minority railing against 'the state of climbing nowadays' is more important than having any consideration for the families referred to.

Debating risk, commercialism, parenting as it relates to climbing, competency and age of responsibility is fair game on a climbing forum in my view but it should be made clear that those involved in these particular news reports aren't contributing to a problem.

I'm not sure how many of you actually know any of the children referenced, I just know the one, his name is Jack. He is up there with the most fun-loving, creative, caring, smart and funny boys I've had the pleasure to know. He is also a climber, he loves to climb (a lot) and he loves climbing (a lot) and everything about it.

He's not motivated by sponsorship, he's not pushed by his parents. He leads on his climbing and his parents support him in pursuing his passion, as safely as correct practice of the sport allows, like good parents should. That as a family they are united in a shared passion is great. This is not the case in my family and frankly I'm envious of the logistical simplicity and time together that that unity affords them.

As far as climbing and publicity goes, Jack's ticking this particular route and sending his first 8a, at his age, is newsworthy. Whether his Dad chooses to focus on that or not, it is an achievement. I was pleased for Jack and it's right that he should receive recognition; the smile on his face in the article says it all (if you know Jack).

That age should not be a factor in measuring achievement in climbing is pretty skewed thinking - it is considered as such in every field if human endeavour I can think of.

For those if you who don't know, Jack's favourite climber (currently) is Alex Megos (I know this because I know Jack, you see). When Megos racks up several hard routes in as many days around the UK that is considered newsworthy too. Ultimately, both are newsworthy because of the time factor, Jack because of his years on the planet when he got Raindogs and Megos because of his 'send to time spent' ratio during his visit.

Ultimately, Jack and Alex are both climbers doing what climbers do. That's the way Jack sees it I'm sure, and why shouldn't he - climbing is for everybody, right? Jack is inspired by Megos and why shouldn't another climber, of any age, be inspired by Jack? And, how could they be without knowing about him?

Climbing is climbing. How many of you are motivated by having new experiences? By pushing your grade? By climbing harder? By training hard to achieve your goals? By solving the problem? By working in partnership to do so? By understanding risk and doing what you need to do routinely to minimise that risk? By feeling the fear and doing it anyway? By learning to manage frustration? By trusting? By giving and receiving advice and encouragement? By knowing yourself and others better? By having fun? By socialising with like minded people? By being acknowledged for what you achieve?

Given the fact that most of you are motivated to climb by several or all of the above, why would anybody advocate denying a child the same on the basis that they are a child when that's what they enjoy?

In reply to Escala:

If the motivation genuinely comes from the child, I don't have too much worry.

But I have friends whose children play in football teams, and they regularly have to post reminders to parents as to how to behave on the sidelines; essentially, not living vicariously through their children. Not barking orders. Not shouting abuse. Not abusing the match officials. Not haranguing the team's coaches. But encouraging all players on both sides for good play. And supporting them whatever the result.

The fact that this sort of reminder is necessary is probably at the root of the concerns expressed on this thread.

Here are a few examples:

http://time.com/3605549/plea-to-parents-of-young-athletes-simmer-down/
http://news.sky.com/story/1647593/violent-football-parents-warned-someone-m...
http://www.5wayssoccer.co.uk/?page_id=942
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/schoolgirl-football-ref-ask...

In reply to captain paranoia:

I wouldn't disagree regarding football in my experience. With regards Jack, it's genuinely all him.