UKC

The view from the Grauniad:

Climbing's inclusion in Olympics a false summit for some in the sport

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/16/climbing-olympics-sport-2020-t...

In reply to Clauso:

It's an interesting topic. I know Alex Megos is not keen on it becoming Olympic (mentioned in the The Ledge podcast).

I can't see the suggestion that climbing becoming more regulated, with more rules etc. being an issue. How would it work? Who would enforce such rules? Climbers are, in general, a pretty anarchic bunch anyway and unlikely to take much notice of any such rules. In fact they don't already. Just because a crag may be banned for climbing it doesn't mean people won't climb there and any attempts to stop people seem to usually to fail.

Maybe indoors there could be more rules. Sounds like there already are too many in some places with the recent topics of no topless climbing and no fall practice.

Could it drive the popularity up too far? Well, on rock at least, you could say the popularity is already too high - at least in this country. We already have trashed crags and queues for routes at popular crags. For the UK I think the future of climbing is likely to be on artificial walls regardless. So if popularity does increase we can just build more crags, better for everyone?

In places like France, Spain and other European areas there is just so much rock there is surely plenty of room for expansion at the moment.

But I wonder if the whole expansion thing is unfounded? Synchronized Swimming is/was an Olympic event but I don't think that's lead to a massive rise in popularity.

Interesting that the BMC are support Olympic climbing yet at the same time not bothering to send any of the team to compete! No Team GB at Villars this weekend and only one climber out of a ten strong team last weekend at Chamonix.

In reply to stp:

Just pointing out the 'no fall practise' thing seemed quite debunked to me; The OP presented an (understandably) biased view of what was going on that didn't hold up to scrutiny.

On topic: a combined format is ridiculous. Even sport/bouldering would be far more acceptable to most people I imagine

In reply to Clauso:
For what it is worth here are my thoughts on this topic.
According to Wiki (Mock if you wish) The Olympic Games are about 'athletes from around the world ......taking part in the world's foremost sports competition'
It is clear that the activity called climbing has developed a vibrant indoor competitive strand in which the participants can certainly be described as athletes. Why then shouldn't they have an opportunity to participate in the 'world's foremost sports competition'.
It is a long way from me struggling up a VS on Stanage but I identify with that activity just as me in my Honda Jazz (Laugh if you must) connects me to Lewis Hamilton in his Mercedes - we are both driving cars!
I love watching F1 Grand Prix and I look forward to seeing the GB climbers competing in the Tokyo Olypics.

In reply to Clauso:

I would prefer an Olympic breakfast.

In reply to bouldery bits:

F***ing hell yeah , egg bacon sausage the lot all the trimmings!, Olympic climbing seems kinda dry and boring in comparison Like a bowl of cornflakes or something.

In reply to Clauso:

Yeah it's a load of bollox, fake competition which will increase demand for safety outside - not a safe sport climbing, there are plenty of safer ones if thats your thing...

In reply to LakesWinter:

How exactly would it increase demand for safety? I always hear this tired excuse, or something to do with regulation. I'm not in favour of the current proposed olympic format, but broadly pro-competition. How exactly would 'safety outside' be policed/enforced? I await your reply with anticipation!

In reply to Clauso:

So another reason to sit motionless watching someone else do something, great!

In reply to Clauso:

If people think climbing is OTT for the Olympics, then why include Beach Vollyball?

That's just soft porn to sell Jonson's Baby Oil.

In reply to stp:



How the BMC deals with climbing in the Olympics is going to be a big challenge. Sending a team to a comp costs money. The Olympics may mean lottery funding for elite performance (as opposed to participation funding) and should mean better sponsorship opportunities, but it's all a bit chicken and egg right now. It may be necessary to create a subsidiary org to ensure it doesn't suffer the pitfalls experienced in canoeing (loss of focus on access) or snow sports (bankruptcy)

In reply to Clauso:

Looking at other olympic kind of sports and the understanding of sport/competition some of the athletes have, I do not want Climbing to become olympic. My naivety tells me that doping is not an issue up to now in the climbing scene, but maybe will be if it gets olympia and lot's of money is put in this sport.

In reply to Vero:

My naivety tells me that doping is not an issue up to now in the climbing scene

Well I've seen many a green cloud floating over the crag in the evening but I'm not sure smoking weed makes your performance any better. In fact I'm pretty sure it's makes you want a nice sit down.

In reply to Wsdconst:

>... I'm not sure smoking weed makes your performance any better. In fact I'm pretty sure it's makes you want a nice sit down.

You've probably just explained the origins of the well-known bouldering variant there?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think that's the nub of the worries that many people have.
If competition climbing provides for itself, both in finance and organisation, then there ought to be no problem.
If however it takes manpower and finance from the main income of the BMC (British MOUNTAINEERING Council), where many people are walkers and even amongst climbers probably 99.9% have never and will never compete then there will be a problem.
If the competition climbing fraternity obtains sponsorship then all well and good to them.
I do not however want hill walkers subsidising what could become effectively full time competition climbers (and managers, physios, coaches !) when the competition climbers in this country probably do not number more than a few dozen.

In reply to fred99:


And I think the level of corruption that appears to increase as the amount of money changing hands increases in other sports.

In reply to fred99:

First they came for the competition climbers, and I was happy for another organisation to speak for those—
Because, unlike many other climbers, I don't enter competitions.

Then they came for the indoor climbers, and I was happy for another organisation to speak for those—
Because, unlike many other climbers, I rarely climb indoors.

Then they came for the sport climbers, and I was happy for another organisation to speak for those—
Because, unlike many other climbers, I only climb sport when on holiday.

Then they came for us trad climbers—and there was no one left to speak for me—
Because the BMC no longer was seen as the organisation responsible for climbing.

In reply to fred99:


There's over three hundred kids at the national final of the Youth Climbing Series every year and maybe 3 times as many in the area competitions so your estimate of a 'few dozen' is way off the mark.

In reply to Clauso:

My concern with inclusion in the Olympics is that climbing becomes a competitive sport. We have competions now at local walls but they're all pretty amateur (in the best sense) even if you include "premier" events such as CWIF. Climbing isn't competitive - beyond a bit of p!ss taking banter - it's suportive and inclusive, and the only person you compete with is yourself. However, a huge number of people will watch climbing at the Olympics and think it represents all climbing and that this is the climbing ethos - to win, to be the best.

World cups and the Olympics only represent a very specific type of climbing.

I don't think the sport will become more regulated or everywhere will be swamped by thousands of people but I do think the attitude of new climbers will be different and it will change the face of climbing. The Olympics will be many people's first impression of climbing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom,
How many of those three hundred kids are paid up members of the BMC ?
The same goes for (quite probably) the overwhelming majority of people who now use indoor walls as gyms - they are not members of the BMC and never will be.
These people are not BMC members, but they are regularly claimed as "climbers" by those who run walls and indoor competitions.
Try making it compulsory for anyone who uses a wall to be a member of the BMC, and pay their dues to the BMC, and then they can be included in the figures when claiming funds from the BMC.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:


Cycling's been a competitive sport since the year dot, and I still seem to be able to go for a Sunday bimble without worrying that my girlfriend will shirk doing her time in the wind and them pip me to the win in the sprint finish...

In reply to Vero:

Climbing has a long history of performance enhancing drugs. In terms of illegal drug use for performance, amphetamines have long been used to keep awake on long expedition days and to lose weight; otherwise there is plenty of recreational use (see the linked thread for some comp bans due to this) . You are probably right that more (esp. sponsorship) money from Olympic inclusion most likely will makes things slightly worse.

http://www.outsideonline.com/1913031/should-rock-climbers-be-worried-about-...

International climbing competitions are currently drug tested.

https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/about-ifsc/anti-doping

In reply to fred99:

Last time I looked it was the avowed aim of the BMC to represent all climbers, mountaineers and hillwalkers, not just those who are signed up members; of course encouraging wider membership is advantageous in bridging the gap and I'm sure the BMC is constantly working to achieve that. Your obsession with membership-centred policy direction reminds me of the problems Labour currently has in seeking wide support among potential voters while remaining obsessed with doing only what the paid-up members decide is right for them.

In reply to fred99:



If they are not "climbers" then what are they? They visit a climbing wall..they climb one, two,three maybe more times a week.

In reply to john arran:

Well said. In my experience in these kids in comps are much more likely to be members than the average climber and more interested than average in the issues in the BMC area access notes we take to local walls, and in getting involved in climbing voluntary work.

In reply to Clauso:

I can't get very excited about this one way or the other. I very much doubt this will lead to the end of climbing as we know it. We already have competitions, but they have very little impact on climbing in general. This will just be a much higher profile competition. The minority who are interested in competitions will be excited about it, and a few more climbers may take an interest because it is the Olympics. Otherwise the minority sports don't get a great deal of coverage, so I doubt this will attract much of a wider audience. It might give a few spectators a misleading idea of what climbing is, but most of them have a completely wrong idea already.

I drive a car but that doesn't make me interested in Formula 1. I ride a bike, but I'm not interested in the Tour de France. I don't mind them taking place, and I don't mind climbing as an Olympic sport, but I probably won't be paying a great deal of attention myself, except out of curiosity.

I would be concerned if it were to divert a disproportionate amount of the BMC's resources, but there's no evidence this might happen. The BMC already supports competitive climbing, and this happens only once every 4 years, so it is unlikely to take over, in my view. If it were to, I think the BMC would then lose a lot of support from the majority of its members, which would be counter-productive.

It will remain to be seen whether the Olympics becomes the most important event in competitive climbing, but this hasn't happened for a number of other sports.

In reply to Clauso:

The proposed Olympic format of boulder/sport/speed is ludicrous, it's just not in the average climber's culture. It would be like a rackets medal where you had to play tennis, squash and badminton. And don't get me started as to why squash is excluded.

In reply to john arran:

That's all well and good, but what's wrong with having a new sporting body to represent this type of competitive climbing?

It's pretty clear some kind of line has been crossed between a highly artificial indoor event at the Olympics (come on, speed climbing?), and something people do non-competitively at home.
Otherwise we may as well fold British Curling into the broomsweeper's union...

In reply to Ramblin dave:
That's great but we're not talking about cycling...they are very different sports.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:


So how is Olympic climbing going to make any difference to me funtering around on Lliwedd?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I didn't say it would, I was talking about climbers who take up the sport off the back of the Olympics.

In reply to Pedro50:


I agree, but I suspect it's an initial compromise in the hope that individual events would be able to follow later. I believe the IOC suggested it would make gaining acceptance easier as it would require fewer medals to be awarded later (I'm thinking gymnastics here, with individual discipline medals and also a combined medal).

If the individual medals follow later this could be a compromise worth making, but I hate the idea that any climber needs to be very good at racing up a permanently-fixed route in order to achieve world-best status at Olympic level.

In reply to SenzuBean:



That line was crossed many years ago and the sky has yet to fall on our heads. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for a reason to ostracise climbers who differ in their choice of preferred climbing activity.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

So then you have a load of people who think climbing is an exciting but safe competitive sport turning up at your local wall, possibly providing enough demand for someone to open up a bigger or better wall. They might well get fit and/or enjoy themselves.

This still doesn't make any difference to anyone who has a different view of what climbing's all about. We can just get on with what we want to do.

In reply to fred99:



Most of them because the entry fees for the YCS are structured so it is cheaper for them to become a BMC/MCofS/Mountaineering Ireland member and get the discounted price than pay the non-discounted price.

There are three hundred and something at the final but each region has a series of three competitions to select their team for the final, there are far more kids in the heats than make it to the final and they will all be better off buying a BMC membership.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Maybe it's because I'm happier being around people who aren't driven by ego and the desire to prove they are better than everyone else? So...I have a concern that show casing climbing to the world as a competitive sport is a (potentially) bad thing. It is only an opinion and I accept it's driven by my personal preferences.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:


Yep, you never see those sort of characters in the climbing world !!!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

lol - are we back to topless climbing now?

<Runs away>

In reply to john arran:


Well, we've already tried sport climbing and bouldering.......... competition climbing just seemed like the last place to exercise my prejudices. Any other suggestions?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Dry toolers

In reply to john arran:


I didn't mean it like that - I'm not ostracizing any climbers. My final comment was basically meant to say "Olympic climbing (read: speed climbing) is as different from hillwalking/climbing, as is Olympic curling from sweeping pavements for a living". I never meant to imply any difference in importance, but just that they're vastly different in character, and that a single body for both might not be ideal.

In reply to Clauso:

Sooooooooo yeah , olympics ......right...................... WHAT DOES EVERYONE LIKE ON THEIR FRY UP!? ,




*smears butter on chest*

In reply to The Lemming:



You answered your own question there.

In reply to caver:


I would say it's their choice, the bureaucrats want to claim them for climbing but I've met several gym climbers who don't describe themselves as climbers.

It's a bit like the BCU claiming that anyone who used a rowing machine is a paddler, whether they like it or not.

Apart from comparisons to Nazi collaborators (WTF?), I don't think it's that difficult to see why some people don't like the bureaucrats' approach to sport.

In reply to Clauso:

It's possibly also worth noting the impact (or lack thereof) London 2012 had in terms of uptake in sport participation - it went down. *slow clap*

So I'd hazard a guess that including climbing in the Olympics will make very little difference to general numbers of climbers. Especially the weird triathlon format which will make it look quite specialised (does anyone here actually do speed climbing?1) and dull (anyone watched IFSC Lead comps?!).

In reply to Clauso:

I am surprised that nobody is mentioning the behaviour of the Olympic Committee as a reason to keep climbing independent. They are "irresponsible" at the very best. In my opinion, their actions in countries such as Brazil make them much like FIFA: an organised crime syndicate.

In reply to Wsdconst:


Anxiety management is a big factor in high level competition. Or so I've heard.

In reply to Durbs:


Yep, I was in Chamonix and Villars. The men's final in Villars was great, very bouldery

In reply to Clauso:

I know that we in the UK decry speed climbing, but apart from Russia (obvious Olympic problems there) are there any countries where speed climbing is seen as a major form of competition climbing.

Just wondered if we're being too parochial about the triple format.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You're biased - you work for them

In reply to Robert Durran:


sometimes the 'like' button just isn't enough...****LIKE****

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Certainly true but they did a better a job with the bouldering. Not sure the point of having a team at all if you're not going to send them the comps though. You gotta be in it to win it!

I can't imagine how disappointing and frustrating it must be to train really hard and to peak for the comp season and then be told, sorry you're not going. If the team are putting the time in to get into shape for the season the BMC should be doing their part by coughing up the cash to send them.

In reply to stp:



It is very common in Olympic sport that countries decide not to send athletes to an event if they are not a realistic medal winner. For example there's a big hoo-ha in progress over the decision by the NZ and AUS sailing governing bodies not to send sailors to certain events in Rio. It's linked to the funding-for-medals model for sport governing models that applies in many countries, including GBR.

In reply to Dogwatch:

I imagine that must be in countries that don't have many participants in particular sports - like we don't have much of a downhill skiing tradition for obvious reasons.

But with climbing we do have a very long and rich tradition, particularly with indoor/artificial climbing which is something we not only invented but bought into the modern era with modern climbing walls. We also have many excellent climbers. William Bosi's fast ascent of Rainshadow suggests he could climb harder than 9a which is only what most World Cup competitors are capable of.

But I also think there is something very wrong with only sending people to a comp if they have a chance of winning a medal. For a starters it's contradicts the age old idea that sports aren't just about winning they're about taking part. Pretty sad imho. It emphasizes only the individual side to sports and devalues or really completely ignores the community aspect of sport. The community aspect to competition climbing is very strong, one of the best things about it.

Secondly if all countries adopted that attitude there would be a huge drop out rate and some sports may end up ceasing to exist at all. Climbing, lead climbing in particular, requires a massive effort of a huge number of people to exist, very different to most other sports.

In reply to stp:

Not at all. The example I gave was for sailing in AUS and NZ and it's a big sport in both those countries, in which both expect to win medals in certain classes.

"But I also think there is something very wrong with only sending people to a comp if they have a chance of winning a medal."

I wasn't arguing it's right or wrong, just that it's very much part of the Olympic game as it is played today. If you don't like with how the Olympic end of sport relates to the grassroots, well, many feel like that across many sports.

"Climbing, lead climbing in particular, requires a massive effort of a huge number of people to exist, very different to most other sports."

Very different to most other sports? I don't think that's true. All competitive sports need a lot more people than the athletes.

In reply to Dogwatch:
Climbing is different in that it requires a huge effort of many people before you can even begin. Most sports don't require much at all. Swimming just needs some water, football just needs a field, table tennis needs a table and a net. A climbing competition needs a huge investment of time and money first, from the general building construction of the wall right down to the highly skilled routesetters who create routes at just level of difficulty.

This fact really jumped out to me at the recent British Bouldering Championships. Before they even started with the routes they had to first erect a huge marquee and then bring in and erect truckloads of scaffolding. I've no idea how many man-hours it took to do everything first but I've no doubt it was a lot more required for most other sports.

Can't really comment on the NZ/Aus sailing thing as I don't know anything about it. But IF the BMC are not sending climbers to comps simply on the basis as they're not good enough to reach a podium place I think that's very poor show, a sad, and very unsporting approach to it all.

In reply to stp:


Come off it, that's a daft comparison. You'r comparing competition climbing to a swim in the river or a kick about down the park. Top standard football needs a bloody big stadium and lots of people to run and maintain it. Same for swimming, just swap the stadium for an aquatic center.

In reply to lostcat:

Football stadiums aren't built for single events. They're usually last for many decades once built so it's very different. If you want to organize a match or a whole series of matches you simply use the existing infrastructure. And besides the stadiums are not built for the game but the spectators. If climbing comps attracted the same number of spectators then you'd probably use an existing stadium but still have the job of building a massive climbing wall on top of that.

Similar for swimming too, very different to a climbing comp. In triathlons it's usual to have the swimming section in a natural water, across a lake or in the sea for instance - so it's possible to do with zero construction costs.

These sports are much older than climbing with histories that go back centuries. Hence they are much simpler to create. Climbing comps are very modern and are completely dependent on modern technologies without which they couldn't exist.

In reply to stp:

And all you need to go climbing is a boulder and a chalk bag.

As far as organising major competitions go, all sports need a large team aside from the athletes. I've been part of organising two sailing world championships, do you think all we need is a bit of water? The race and safety team is 80-100 people. One of those events supplied 300 charter boats to the sailors,which involves transport and a team to unload and manage the kit. And then many of the sailors are bringing coaches and coach boats. Plus there are the caterers, bar staff and house staff to keep all those people fed and watered for a week.

In reply to stp:

Why not use existing walls for climbing competitions then? These too aren't built for single events and last for decades. Football attracts large crowds and climbing comps don't so it makes it even more stupid to build a new temporary wall for one competition given the expense.
Oh give over, triathlons are pretty unique. Traditional pool based swimming events couldn't be held on open water.
Competitive football and swimming only go back about 150 years at most so hardly centuries. I'm sure people have been swimming and kicking stones about for centuries just as people have been going up mountains and climbing rocks for centuries.
Climbing is very simple to create, boulder, rock shoes chalk bag. Just like having a kick about with my mates down the park.

In reply to Clauso:

I'm of the opinion that any competitive sport thats based on an adjective grading system isn't a competitive sport.

In reply to Clauso:

Up 'till now, there was a fair amount of hope in this thread saying that the BMC wouldn't be "diverted" by the inclusion of climbing in the Olympics. After the recent change of name and the motivations behind that, I suppose we've been proven wrong and have to have this entire argument over.

Anyone STILL think climbing in the Olympics won't spoil it for us bumblers who don't care for indoor-speed-bouldering?

In reply to Xharlie:

I have nothing against competition climbing, in fact I quite enjoy watching it and would like to see it in the olympics, but I can't see how the BMC can prioritise both promotion of comps and championing the mountaineering/ climbing community in access disputes etc.
Someone else said, their shift with the name change, towards a sports governing body changes the dynamic from a user led lobby, to a top down federation. It simply won't work

In reply to Xharlie:


Look, you loser, if you can't cope with the fact that I can fall off a V Diff before you've even managed to lace your shoes up, then why on earth should I pay any attention at all to your so-called opinions?

I'm sponsored by Climb Britain, by the way... Read that and weep. I'm beyond caring about the feelings of lesser mortals.

... Don't bother to reply: I've better things to do than read your feeble thoughts.

P.S. I'm ace.

In reply to Clauso:

I'm sorry for the afront, Mr Ace. I'll just be over here, faffing about with these two ropes (two? rather silly, huh?), laboriously sorting out these extendy-draws (twisted mess of slings, I know), and nuts (silly wedges of metal.) It'll be another half an hour before I'm ready for the next route and that one will take all day because it's six pitches long and you know what multi-pitch means: slow and boring, wasting time on the view and conversations between pitches and route-finding and arguing about whether we'll be benighted or not...

In reply to lostcat:


I think it might be that for large international events existing walls aren't designed to fit in all the spectators. But for smaller comps existing walls are certainly used.

In reply to stp:

It's in!

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sport-climbing-olympic-games

I'm confident that I can take Gold at falling off V Diffs.

In reply to Clauso:



How utterly f*cking depressing. The Olympics, guaranteed to suck the life out of every conceivable sport.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


Look on the bright side; Johnny Dawes might get taken on as a pundit? A bit of his stream of consciousness stuff would be highly entertaining. He'll be like a sort of Henry Blofeld figure.

In reply to Clauso:

am now going to be speculating wildly on the following picture.... The Olympic programmibg music swells...the pundits are introduced....Johnny Dawes swivels round in his black leather chair, stroking a white cat....."sooooo, Ms Coxsey....we meet again!"

In reply to pebbles:


My dear old thing! You have the wrong Blofeld; I was actually referring to the following dear old thing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Blofeld

In reply to Clauso:

I like my idea better. I can imagine Johnny Dawes in a secret volcano hideout, broadcasting incomprehensible ultimatums to a scared but utterly baffled world.

In reply to pebbles:

My dear old thing... I prefer the thought of a commentary that might update us on the number of pigeons flapping lazily over the boulders.

In reply to Clauso:
I can understand why some people take part in comps but personally I have no interest in them (other than perhaps the winter bouldering league at the local wall, which is purely something to keep the motivation up, don't really care how well I do).

Indoor climbing in the Olympics is just something I can't really relate to or get interested in. If someone puts up a new route or does a significant repeat, it's something I'm interested in because even though it will obviously be way out of my league, at the end of the day it's outdoor climbing, which is something I do, and it's pushing the limit on bolts or above gear, which is also something I do now and then. So it's something I can relate to, whereas pulling on resin is just training or something fun to do when you can't climb outdoors.

I'm sure there will be great athletes taking part and good luck to them all but it's just not something I can get interested in.

The format is also bizarre, especially with speed climbing thrown in - that's just a spectator sport gimmick, even further removed from what climbing is all about for me.

I suspect I won't be the only one thinking this...

It might increase wall attendance, at least temporarily, which is not a bad thing as the walls would have more money to invest in better facilities. I doubt it would have any impact on outdoor climbing. It would also bring more money to the national climbing team - good for them.

The concern however is that the Olympics and indoor climbing generally will increasingly become the focus of the BMC - something a lot of people are concerned about judging by the reaction to the ill-advised rebranding.

In reply to Misha:

Well said.

In reply to Misha:

You've hit most of the nails on respective heads, there, but there's one thing that still needs to be said - the Olympics does steer sports. Speed climbing might be a quirky oddity, today - an event in which top athletes compete, occasionally, mostly for a change and a bit of flair and certainly NOT as their main line of climbing (are there any climbers who claim speed as their primary discipline?) - but, if the Olympics so chooses, they will legitimise it and it WILL become a dominating discipline simply because the Olympics legitimises it.

Exhibit A: the Laser dinghy class. They're heavy, they're slow, they're were horribly obsolete thirty years ago, they're governed by out-dated one-design rules, monopoly pricing and expensive and they're absolutely no fun at all to watch unless you've actually sailed one and can laugh at the wipe-outs, knowing what the skipper did wrong and exactly how they feel. Most importantly, the speed-vs-effort payoff is terribly poor (lots of work for not very much fast). If they were not part of the Olympics, BETTER boats would be. Moths and 505s would be far more fun both to sail and to watch than Lasers and Stars. But what do you see in every dinghy boat yard? Lasers on dolleys. If the IOC dropped Lasers and Stars, I'd bet that they would dwindle to near non-existence within a year. The sport as a whole would move into the future, freed to adopt a better class - hopefully a fairly free "one-design" like the Moth or 505.

Olympic Lasers and Stars hold the whole sport of dinghy sailing back.

In reply to Xharlie:
I'd love to try a moth, but am not sure if I could even get it going...

In reply to jonnie3430:

Fair enough... but I'm pretty sure I'd get further on a Moth than I would on a top-level competition bouldering route, too.

In reply to Xharlie:

I'd take issue with what you say about Lasers. They were an extremely popular club boat way before they became olympic class and their popularityat this level stems from their strict one design rules. Open classes like Moths are just too expensive to keep up with for an average club sailor.

Obviously the 505 got elbowed out by the 470, not the Star.

In reply to Xharlie:


You could say the same about the UK trad climbing ethic with respect to British climbing standards.

In reply to Clauso:

Since when is Alex Honnold the world's best free climber?

https://www.facebook.com/NAZIA-Rock-Climber-150793158463947/?fref=nf

She's won a fair few awards for her courageous top roping skills though.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Except I don't think outdoor climbing is a competitive sport, only indoor is...

In reply to Misha:

Olympic sport equal sport England funding linked to medal attainment. Focus follows money. Happy result?

I climb vs on gritstone edges and mountain crags, climb pd in the alpes, 5&6 grade sport routes on hols and ramble in the peak in the winter, I think I may be outside of the focus of Climb Britain.

In reply to Fruit:

All very good except Sport England fund participation development (not Olympic Sport medal attainment).

https://www.sportengland.org/


... and Climb Britain clearly intends to support every one of your list of activities (the issues are potential brand confusion and the fact the new brand has been rather sprung on the BMC membership).

Apart from all that you may be right (bloody Romans never did anything for us).

In reply to Fruit:
Combining the "outside" bits of the BMC and the Ramblers, with the competition/gymnastic/sport side of things becoming a separate entity might make sense. There is much more common ground between walking, and trad and alpinism, than between competition speed climbing, and trad and alpinism.

In reply to MG:

That's just your opinion that I suspect onlly a minority of climbers would agree with. The BMC doesn't represent all walkers, only hill and mountain walkers.

In reply to Offwidth:

Which bit?

Exactly. That doesn't make much sense really.

Fabulous news. Been avidly watching most of the world cups over the last couple of years. Boulder, Lead and the occasional speed. For my money's worth it's some of the best sporting action that I watch. Each comp has its own unique flavour. Location, crowd, wall design. Most of the routsetting is great. The ability of the climbers to pull off the hardest moves or have the stamina to climb through sustained cruxes shows the level that is achieved through years of training. On the whole it's onsighting at the highest level. To the doubters I'd say give it a chance. It's a million miles away from my trad roots in the early 80s but it's brought me plenty of enjoyment. Maybe try watching some of the world Championships in Sept and see the 15000 spectators go wild.?

In reply to Clauso:

Its been interesting following the ebb and flow of this post, and it prompted me to look for what a sport has to do to get in and stay in the Olympics. Could only find the 2012 criteria, but it makes fascinating reading and implies a fair shift in the role of Climb Britain/BMC. Wonder how others read this lot?

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Programme_commi...

Dave

In reply to full stottie:
I like this requirement: "Submission to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of all disputes which cannot be settled
amicably or through local arbitration or mediation;"

At least we'll get a grade for three-pebble slab!

In reply to MG:
Have you ever talked to a BMC walking volunteer rep or to Carey, or are you just making this up as you go along? At area meetings they seem to see all sorts of common access issues , especially to and on CROW land (whereas lowland walking access is often of no interest to climbers). The whole point of the exercise was to deal with better representation for hill walking amd the overlap into scrambling.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/BMC-appoints-first-ever-hill-walking-officer

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/hill-walkers-have-spoken

In reply to Offwidth:

You seem to be agreeing with me that there is a lot of overlap between the BMC and the Ramblers (CROW, access, etc.), which was my point. It would make sense to have all this in the remit of one, representative organisation. All the indoor, sports and competition stuff (and looming drugs testing, arbitration and so on), could then go with another governing body.

In reply to John Kelly:


Repunctuated for you

I'm not so sure about competition climbing on the telly grabbing me but have to admit that the times I've been in attendance at the Arco RockMasters has been pretty enthralling and gripping.


But the ice-creams could be cheaper.

In reply to Offwidth:


Jim Perrin's article in Hard Rock is a good example

And I'd have thought that the range of medication available and regularly popped by trekkers and expeditioners to ward off HAS comes into the category?

In reply to MG:
I'm saying many hillwalkers and scramblers clearly felt the BMC served them better than the Ramblers and you seem to be ignoring this and making stuff up. Of course there are shared access issues across organisations like the BMC and Ramblers.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not making anything up beyond a suggestion for how to arrange representation for outdoor activities.

I'll leave you to your comfortable, unchanging perspective...

In reply to Michael Hood:



China.

In reply to Fruit:



Agreed. You'd be better off sticking with the BMC

In reply to MG:


So competition climbing, and the training for it and the facilities dedicated to it (the walls) becomes 'governed' by a separate body that only exists to support indoor climbing and competitions? Whilst the 'outdoorsies' stay with the BMC and Ramblers? Oh, Brave New World!

I would refer you to to numerous threads on UKC decrying the impact of 'wall-climbers' without the requisite understanding upon the outdoors. Don't you think that some joined up education might be appropriate?

In reply to Andy Say:


Yes. Governed because a governing body appears to be expected for competitive sport, but not desirable for recreational activities, like walking and trad climbing.


I dare say communication would be possible. However, there appears to be much cleaner (and growing) divide between competitive climbing and recreation, than between mountaineering and (flat) walking. Having organisations that reflect this would make sense.

In reply to Offwidth:

I beg to differ, a number of sports have had their funding cut after failing to reach targets including medals.

Basketball is one example:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/29932466

In reply to Fruit:

Again, that is from a different funding body (that you can only access once you are an Olympic sport).

In reply to MG:

It seems to me that the BMC is the organisation that is trying to respond to the times in the face of conservative views like yours. Its not my views I was portraying I was linking to evidence of the views of walking and scrambling BMC members and defending their position. There are similar surveys with attitudes to competition climbing with a genrally supportive membership (presumably providing the funding doesn't shift too much in that direction). You in contrast still seem to be just making stuff up (transfering your views on the membership with no evidence). Are you even a member of the BMC?

In reply to Offwidth:

The point of 'sport' is to do it,not watch it,and get manically partisan.

In reply to paul mitchell:


The sport / entertainment interface? The TV companies make a bob or two out of people 'watching' rather than 'doing'.

In reply to MG:

Re offwidth- agreed

In reply to paul mitchell:
I manage to enjoy watching competitive sport without getting maniacally partisan, dont you? I certainly enjoy watching world class climbing competitors in action but as for partisan I sometimes delight in my national team losing if the money and bullshit gets too much for me (esp our football team). Yet I also get vicarious enjoyment from just watching others move well on rock or ice, or just by watching small climbing acheivements. Since my local walls opened I always 'competed', albeit only in a fun sense (I have managed to win a karabiner and a couple of short free passes in 25 years of being pretty rubbish).

I always loved the aspect of climbing that meant we could choose our 'games' from a wide variety, and with no-one telling us what to do in that selection, even if it is high risk; so those people telling me what a climbing game is and isn't are not going to get much support from me (unless it involves negatively affecting others or damaging the environment).

I also trust the membership of the BMC to democratically keep the balance of the organisation where it should be (with competition input an important but minority effort). Its all a bit rich when members (and especially non members) use the Olympics or rebranding to try and subvert other longstanding clear democratic decision making (like support for competions being very much part of the BMC remit). Armchair internet critics of the BMC are cheap... as you know: I turn up, take part, and volunteer.

In reply to Offwidth:

My point, policy and structure become dependant upon funding, Olympic success equal more, or at least continued, funding, focus therefore shifts towards activity that brings that success. In a way the current BMC model relays on membership fees, so we matter, all of us, bimbly to superstar. With Olympic related funding won't the emphasis change away from the rank and file as our fees become less significant part of the income stream?

In reply to Fruit:

Olympic related funding will only make a difference to those competing at a very high level. The existing funding sources will not be reliant on Olympic success, or even participation, so the existing work of the bmc will not lessen as a result. Competitions may become a larger proportion of the bmc's work due to its growth, but the amount of work done in existing areas will not diminish as a result.
So in index form, if the amount of money and effort expended on comps etc = 10, and the amount of money etc expended on everything else = 90, and as a result of its expansion, the amount of money etc expended on comps expands to 20 (I. E. Doubles, the effort and money etc expended on everything else will remain at the same 90, all other things remaining equal.
So, comps grows, everything else stays at the same level. However, we are all climbers and would love to see all areas grow. If Olympic inclusion brings more funding to the table for all parts of the bmc, then great. Nobody involved with comps will begrudge any additional funding gained by other areas if that should happen.

In reply to Andy Say:

You going to be in Arco this year Andy. If so we must have a beer as well as a gelato.

In reply to Andy Say:

And Poland.

And Ukraine.

And now even France and Italy.

In reply to Ian W:

It would be great if that is the way it plays out

In reply to Ian W:


Who decides on the allocation of funding, how much is spent on access, Team GM, etc?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Each of the different specialist committees / groups submits a funding request, the finance committee and exec look at what's available, and allocate according to the strength of the bids, and funds available and whether external funding is for a specific project.

In reply to Ian W:


So how can you be sure that in future they won't allocate less resources to access issues for example?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I can't be sure for any individual area. I am not party to the funding requests from any area other than comps (Inc. The team). However, if the access group and staff don't think there is a requirement for level funding in consecutive years, then they would probably request less. It would be nothing to do with any other area of operation.

In reply to Ian W:


I guess I don't understand why one area couldn't affect another? The access group might request the same, but get less, because they don't have the final say, finance committee and exec do I think you're saying. And they might favour funding Team GB.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Theoretically it could.

But there are many other options available. The BMC have significant reserves to allow for fluctuations in demand, so if a major access issue arises unexpectedly it can be dealt with properly.

The BMC has a very strong balance sheet and given the resources and income streams available to it, would have to be guilty of some spectacular financial mismanagement if it got to the position where it had to choose between access and the team for the last £10.

In reply to Ian W:

In the short term, I don't have any real concern that important issues such as access will be dealt with. But I don't have a great deal of trust in rich and powerful organisations such as the IOC, and I think the less involved the BMC are with such organisations, the better. Money can corrupt, and it'd be naive to think the BMC are immune. The IOC don't have the same concerns for UK climbing and it's traditions and history, and the recent name change suggests to me that the BMC are heading in the wrong direction in that regard. The fact that the name change came from external influence adds to any concern.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Dont Worry. Which other national governing bodies have been corrupted by the IOC? The BMC won't be dealing directly with them anyway. The IOC rightly won't have any regard for UK climbing tradition - why should they? Their concern is the Olympic games.
Re the name change, please go to your next area meeting, you will then perhaps learn the full rebrand story, and the true extent of the "external influence" on the name change part of said rebrand.
And if anyone should suggest that sport England weren't involved in the choice of the name, don't dismiss it out of hand, they may be telling the truth........

In reply to Ian W:


How would I know?


And they'll use climbing to that end, regardless of any negative impact on what others find important in climbing. Better to not have their influence?


Don't have time to climb as much as I'd like at the moment, so I pay my fees and buy all the guidebooks. If we're putting effort into a re-brand, can't we modernise communications so we don't all have to descend on the next area meet?


I thought Sport England paid the companies that came up with the name change idea?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

No idea, so why assume the bmc will be affected?

Only competition climbing is part of the Olympic program. No other part of climbing will be affected.


Yes, hopefully. But don't hold your breath. This is one of the first
Occasions I can remember when the bmc have been proactive in something, and have received a good kicking as a result. Just don't expect any more significant changes for a while, if there's even the remotest possibility of a backlash.

Yes and no. Funding became available from sport England, bmc applied, got some, engaged agencies, accepted recommendations, paid agencies. So yes they paid, but not so directly as I think you are suggesting ( or am I too jaded from reading the hearsay and rumour so prevalent on here.....). There was no obligation to take on any of the recommendations.

In reply to Ian W:




I hope that that thinking is not typical of the BMC exec thinking. Let's be clear - the exec did not receive a 'kicking' for being proactive. They got it for doing something many people thought wrong, but mainly for doing it in what appeared to be an underhand way - no consultation and little acceptance that they might have got it wrong. The best they could manage was to accept that there was "more interest" than they had expected. Being proactive does not mean avoiding/ignoring the opinions of people you represent.

If the exec's reaction after this is to cease being 'proactive' (a.k.a "spitting dummy") then they are not doing their job.

In reply to Clauso:

personally I think there are already to many new sports in the Olympics, it just feeds the gravy train and makes it even more costly for any nation to host it. Not every sport needs to be contested in the Olympics etc... the addition of professional golf, tennis etc... seems a massive step backwards in what the Olympics should be about.

As a climber I don't care if climbing is never featured in the Olympics, a global competition forcing debt on host nations, promoting unhealthy global brands like McDs and Cola etc.. doesn't seem to correlate with the kind of environment and ethics most climbers enjoy.

Rant over.

In reply to summo:
Tend to agree on the too many sports and the Olympics being too big; in my view there are 2 criteria that are not being used enough in the Olympics:
1. Getting back to the original "further, higher, faster" (or whatever it was) idea.
2. Only including sports where the Olympics is the pinnacle - so bye-bye tennis, golf, football, etc

By those criteria, competition climbing would be ok in the Olympics.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Agree hugely - pro tennis and golf for two examples have no place. Football imo is ok in its U21 or U23 form.
The olympics should be the pinnacle ; the day it is treated as just another tournament is the day that sport should leav the olympics.

In reply to Marek:

I would actally agree with a lot of what you say here - one area the bmc consistently lets itself down is pr and communications - maybe this will be the start of an improvement in that area?

In reply to Michael Hood:

sounds a good benchmark, but money follows the Olympics so the IOC won't ever introduce it. If they can have some tennis star who people will pay lots of money to see and they can charge their sponsor more to place a McDs outside the tennis stadium and charge higher ticket prices etc.. then moving their commercial sports aside for something amateur has zero chance. The Olympics is about money, not sport as far as the IOC is concerned.

In reply to Ian W:


I'm not assuming that. You're assuming the BMC won't be affected. I'm challenging your assumption.


Thanks. I admit I didn't pay that much attention to BMC issues before the re-name, I was happy to leave them to it, but it's made me start questioning what their aim is, and the direction they're moving in.


Thanks, I understand that. But you can feel obligated, even if there isn't a formal obligation. Especially when you've accepted a chunk of cash.

In reply to Clauso:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/olympics-skatetboarding-in-2020-tokyo...

I wondered how much climbing would be similar, so substituted one for the other...

"... the Olympics could turn a lot of athletes off competing.

"As far as the [climbing] community is concerned, for a lot of people it will seem cheesy. This country verses that country is not the unified [climbing] culture," he said.

"When you meet a bunch of [climbers] you don't feel like it's us verses them, it's just a bunch of guys getting together and want to have a [climb]."

"There will definitely be some [climbers] that are keen to go to an Olympics, but as a majority the Olympics will not be a pinnacle for [climbing]; [climbing] is the pinnacle for [climbing]," he said.

In reply to Damo:

If you substitute 'walking' instead it's even more obvious that Olympic involvement is only really relevant to competitors. Sports like skiing and kayaking seem to be able to cope with both competitive and recreational branches of the sport and climbing so far has managed OK too.

I'm not a big fan of the way the Olympics is run but I do see the value to competitors. Assuming disciplines get their own medals one day I don't think there's much doubt that for competition climbers the Olympics would most certainly be the pinnacle of achievement.

In reply to john arran:


I'm not so sure about kayaking. The BCU has pretty much totally focused on competition, leaving grass roots function like access negotiation to other organisations. A vision of a BMC future?

In reply to Marek:

I have no knowledge of the BCU but surely if what you say is true it would be a lesson to learn from rather than an inevitability, focusing on repeating the successes of some bodies rather than repeating the mistakes of others.

In reply to john arran:


Agreed. It's good to learn from your mistakes, but better to learn from the mistakes of others and all that.
I look forward to seeing some analysis report from the BMC along these lines.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Perhaps 'learning for the mistakes of others' is not very British? Doesn't build character as making - and hopefully surviving - your own cock-ups. And surely having the 'character' is more important than simply being good at something, isn't it?

But putting that cynicism aside, I really do hope the BMC think very carefully about their role and responsibilities within the climbing/hill-walking/ski-mountaineering community and how they will deal with the conflicts that will inevitably arise. And well before they arise, rather than after the event.

Don't worry about competition gaining priority over access. It seems the IFSC will take up the slack!

In this interview with Marco Scholaris, he is quoted as promising that the IFSC will eventually extend its remit to include access issues at sporting climbing venues.

https://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.8a.nu%2Farticles%2FShowArticle...
"
- Shouldn’t the IFSC be more involved in preserving bouldering and sport climbing crags, especially those with access issues? Have you weighed up the figure of something similar to the Access Fund integrated in the IFSC structure?
As a consequence of the above, we’d like to do more for all the community, also out of the competition area. But we cannot focus on too many goals and also in some countries the local NF leaders are reluctant to do so, but someday it will happen.
"

I always thought that the word 'Sport climbing' was just a translation error and the intention of the International Federation of Sport Climbing was only to focus on competitions.

If the above quote from Scholaris is true, then it seems the suspicion of a plan to extend further into the realm of the UIAA was actually moot.

Is Scholaris still president for life?

In reply to MooseMouse:


What makes you think this would be the case?

In reply to MooseMouse:

Scholaris president for life.... got you.... only one person I know regularly brings that up.

In reply to Offwidth:

I doubt if MooseMouse is Bob, the language isn't flowery enough

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Maybe he is trying to be in disguise, or, like many, seduced into being less polite by the anonymity of the internet.... lots of BMC committee input cuts the list to a very small number.... or does he have BMC Minions?

In reply to Offwidth:


A bit like 'Young Ken' you mean. Remember him from NW Area

In reply to Pedro50:


Or like the cycling Omnium, you mean? Although at least the cyclists have the option of entering the individual events rather than only the single combined Omnium.