This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Ok so I never usually post this kind of thing but this seems to be the elephant in the room on the topic of the BMC name change and I feel this is something the organisation (or brand as they seem to think they are) need to address. With climbing set to become an Olympic sport is it time to have one body to support and promote the sport side of climbing indoors and competitions in partnership with Sport England and another for the outdoors side? It seems to me to be the logical thing to do as there seems to be such a difference in what each of these roles involves.
69
In reply to sheelba:
Yup!
Which makes the decision to rebrand even more mental. Why not keep the BMC and let sportX-laser eagle uk run competition promotion. Maybe we'd actually put s full team out and host an international comp!
Yup!
Which makes the decision to rebrand even more mental. Why not keep the BMC and let sportX-laser eagle uk run competition promotion. Maybe we'd actually put s full team out and host an international comp!
20
In reply to mark_wellin:
What's going on at the moment makes me almost inclined to believe in astrology. The biggest contemporary news item has been rightly described as a 'clusterf*ck', but now it seems we're getting into multiple clusterf*cks. Even the dear old BMC seems to have become caught up in it.
What's going on at the moment makes me almost inclined to believe in astrology. The biggest contemporary news item has been rightly described as a 'clusterf*ck', but now it seems we're getting into multiple clusterf*cks. Even the dear old BMC seems to have become caught up in it.
20
1
In reply to sheelba:
No need if outdoor climbing and hillwalking keep getting the same level of focus and resource but the fear is that they won't.
It is up to all of us as BMC members to make our voices heard through area meetings etc.
No need if outdoor climbing and hillwalking keep getting the same level of focus and resource but the fear is that they won't.
It is up to all of us as BMC members to make our voices heard through area meetings etc.
9
24
In reply to toad:
Yes, that's a great synonym that I'm also fond of using of late. But I slightly prefer the ruder, less gentle clusterf*ck.
Yes, that's a great synonym that I'm also fond of using of late. But I slightly prefer the ruder, less gentle clusterf*ck.
7
In reply to toad:
Also, 'cluster' is focused on a particular problem, while 'omni-' relates better to the shambles the whole western world is now in.
Also, 'cluster' is focused on a particular problem, while 'omni-' relates better to the shambles the whole western world is now in.
2
In reply to sheelba:
Its very dfficult to see how one organisation can be both a governing body representing a very small number of climbers and at the same time be a representative organisation for the vast majority of its members, not to mention many times more people again whose interests it claims to represent even though they aren't members at all.
This becomes even harder when the average spend per person in the first group is considerably greater than the second even though they are the great majority and therefore contribute more in subs (and purchases, insurance, guidebooks etc).
The conflict of interest is further increased when you consider that the great majority of the members are either totally ambivalent or outrightly hostile towards competitions.
It has seemed evident for some time to me that the increasingly slick, highly self promoting BMC is dominated by people who are very pro comps in a way that most members aren't and therefore cannot be considered as the representative body it was set up to be. Even ignoring competitions, the BMC seems to have been actively promoting participation in climbing in a way that, as I understood it, it was constitutionally never set up to do and which by increasing pressure of numbers actually exacerbates many of the problems it should be trying to solve such as erosion, litter, pressure on sensitive environments etc.
I don't think a sport v trad split is sensible (I know you haven't suggested that but I've heard it suggested before), the issues the BMC should be dealing with are essentially the same for both activities, indeed they often take place on the very same crags with sport and trad routes side by side. The logical division would be an indoor/outdoor split or even a competitions/everything else split.
Its very dfficult to see how one organisation can be both a governing body representing a very small number of climbers and at the same time be a representative organisation for the vast majority of its members, not to mention many times more people again whose interests it claims to represent even though they aren't members at all.
This becomes even harder when the average spend per person in the first group is considerably greater than the second even though they are the great majority and therefore contribute more in subs (and purchases, insurance, guidebooks etc).
The conflict of interest is further increased when you consider that the great majority of the members are either totally ambivalent or outrightly hostile towards competitions.
It has seemed evident for some time to me that the increasingly slick, highly self promoting BMC is dominated by people who are very pro comps in a way that most members aren't and therefore cannot be considered as the representative body it was set up to be. Even ignoring competitions, the BMC seems to have been actively promoting participation in climbing in a way that, as I understood it, it was constitutionally never set up to do and which by increasing pressure of numbers actually exacerbates many of the problems it should be trying to solve such as erosion, litter, pressure on sensitive environments etc.
I don't think a sport v trad split is sensible (I know you haven't suggested that but I've heard it suggested before), the issues the BMC should be dealing with are essentially the same for both activities, indeed they often take place on the very same crags with sport and trad routes side by side. The logical division would be an indoor/outdoor split or even a competitions/everything else split.
27
1
In reply to sheelba:
Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.
https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...
Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.
https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...
6
2
In reply to sheelba:
Quote from the Artist Formerly Known as BMC's own website.
"only 10,628 of our 82,536 members"
How many people live in Britain? Why is such a small percentage club given the right to act as a representing body by Sport England? Also who asked Sport England to decide that?
I feel SE and tAFKABMC need to climb out of their collective poopchutes.
Quote from the Artist Formerly Known as BMC's own website.
"only 10,628 of our 82,536 members"
How many people live in Britain? Why is such a small percentage club given the right to act as a representing body by Sport England? Also who asked Sport England to decide that?
I feel SE and tAFKABMC need to climb out of their collective poopchutes.
5
In reply to pec:
Is it? Other sport's governing bodies manage it. It is hardly a new or unique issue.
> Its very dfficult to see how one organisation can be both a governing body representing a very small number of climbers and at the same time be a representative organisation for the vast majority of its members, not to mention many times more people again whose interests it claims to represent even though they aren't members at all.
Is it? Other sport's governing bodies manage it. It is hardly a new or unique issue.
In reply to Dogwatch:
> Is it? Other sport's governing bodies manage it.
Which ones? I can't think of any. But I can offer British Canoeing as an example of how it goes wrong (shift of focus from grass-root access to competitions and medals).
10
In reply to sheelba:
Interestingly in France there are 2 bodies which govern and promote climbing - the CAF - Club Alpin Francais & the FFME - Federation Francaise de Montagne & Escalade; the latter is more concerned with climbing and comps but its not clear-cut. Among those climbers I know there is an apparent polarisation and loyalty - each to their own. And possibly some friction at times - which is probably what you'd get - inside or outside of such organisations.
Interestingly in France there are 2 bodies which govern and promote climbing - the CAF - Club Alpin Francais & the FFME - Federation Francaise de Montagne & Escalade; the latter is more concerned with climbing and comps but its not clear-cut. Among those climbers I know there is an apparent polarisation and loyalty - each to their own. And possibly some friction at times - which is probably what you'd get - inside or outside of such organisations.
1
In reply to Marek:
Pretty much all of the NGBs balance grassroots with elite participation. Many where the elite side is much more developed than in climbing.
Pretty much all of the NGBs balance grassroots with elite participation. Many where the elite side is much more developed than in climbing.
In reply to pec:
Times change. The BMC has plenty of members who strongly support competition and sport climbing.... they survey their membership so they know this.... so you are just making shit up when you say the great majority of its members are ambivalent or hostile. You seem to me to be bandwagoning on the negative response to the name change to have a go at other areas of the BMC that you disagree with.
I'm a long standing individual member and have regularly attended area meetings for many years and (at potential risk of my sanity) even attended the last national council meeting. I'm predominantly a trad climber. I've volunteered heavily in work for guidebooks, climbing history, access and special events (that support these areas). My view is that access and safety are the most important features of the organisation and I'm broadly happy with the BMC, despite disgareeing with some aspects of the organisation (like this rebrand).
Times change. The BMC has plenty of members who strongly support competition and sport climbing.... they survey their membership so they know this.... so you are just making shit up when you say the great majority of its members are ambivalent or hostile. You seem to me to be bandwagoning on the negative response to the name change to have a go at other areas of the BMC that you disagree with.
I'm a long standing individual member and have regularly attended area meetings for many years and (at potential risk of my sanity) even attended the last national council meeting. I'm predominantly a trad climber. I've volunteered heavily in work for guidebooks, climbing history, access and special events (that support these areas). My view is that access and safety are the most important features of the organisation and I'm broadly happy with the BMC, despite disgareeing with some aspects of the organisation (like this rebrand).
17
1
In reply to Offwidth:
My point is that the BMC is supposed to represent all climbers and walkers regardless of whether they are members or not, that's in its constitution and I'd be amazed if the huge number of non members actively supported comps.
As a representative organisation it is simply not reflecting those it "represents" when the BMC itself is so enthusiastically pro comps.
If it hadn't endorsed climbing as an Olympic sport a few ago it might have a few more members like me.
I recognise that comps aren't going to go away and if that's what people want to do its up to them but I don't want my representative body misrepresenting me by diverting so much of its time and resources into an activity that I see as anathema to everything I value in climbing.
I also think that competition climbers would be better represented by a governing body that wasn't distracted by negotiating over access with unsympathetic landowners and monitoring nesting birds on crags etc. It's in their interest too for the BMC to split.
> Times change. The BMC has plenty of members who strongly support competition and sport climbing.... they survey their membership so they know this.... so you are just making shit up when you say the great majority of its members are ambivalent or hostile. >
My point is that the BMC is supposed to represent all climbers and walkers regardless of whether they are members or not, that's in its constitution and I'd be amazed if the huge number of non members actively supported comps.
As a representative organisation it is simply not reflecting those it "represents" when the BMC itself is so enthusiastically pro comps.
If it hadn't endorsed climbing as an Olympic sport a few ago it might have a few more members like me.
I recognise that comps aren't going to go away and if that's what people want to do its up to them but I don't want my representative body misrepresenting me by diverting so much of its time and resources into an activity that I see as anathema to everything I value in climbing.
I also think that competition climbers would be better represented by a governing body that wasn't distracted by negotiating over access with unsympathetic landowners and monitoring nesting birds on crags etc. It's in their interest too for the BMC to split.
4
2
In reply to The New NickB:
But the point is those National GOVERNING Bodies have to apply rules etc to all levels of their sport which don't exist in non competetive climbing because those are formal sports with rules and regulations.
Climbers need a representaive organisation not a governing body.
> Pretty much all of the NGBs balance grassroots with elite participation. Many where the elite side is much more developed than in climbing. >
But the point is those National GOVERNING Bodies have to apply rules etc to all levels of their sport which don't exist in non competetive climbing because those are formal sports with rules and regulations.
Climbers need a representaive organisation not a governing body.
11
2
Without much doubt the greatest growth in the climbing community is in indoor climbing and this is also the arena that competition happens. I've heard rumours to the effect that the BMC is concerned that Sport England might consider that it should throw its (financial) weight behind organisations that represents indoor climbing, NICAS, training and competitive climbing rather than the BMC which has a much wider umbrella.
Climb Britain is a dreadful rebrand and the motives behind it have not been clearly articulated but maybe it should be seen as a preemptive land-grab against the likes of the MTLA and the ABC for representation of the bits that SE fund? especially considering the prospect of Olympic competition. Should climbing get in this doesn't bode well for the grassroots and we can expect to see some repetition of the BCU refocussing.
It seems to me that a middle ground would be to hive off the competition arm into "CB" as a subdivision of the BMC
with a clear financial division and with cross representation.
10
In reply to pec:
The majority of climbing these days is probably indoors and I fail to see a lack of support for competions there. In the very large number of non BMC member outdoor climbers I know I see no such clear majority anti-comp attitude, despite knowing a few like you claiming an anti comp majority based on no evidence. In the BMC membership we have surveys and at area meetings I attend (with the majority who are climbers and who are mainly motivated by trad and access to attend) pro BMC involvement in comps is the majority.
The BMC doesn't represent all walkers. It is trying to improve its service to hill, mountain and coastal walkers and scramblers where access, enviromental and cross activity issues are important to its existing members and where recruitment potential is good. More members means more influence and more activity in the areas the membership defines in a democratic organisation. The smaller number of hill walkers I know in the BMC seem no different in their range of views on comps to the much larger number of climbing members I know.
Blaming the BMC for not looking after your invented concerns in the vast majority of climbers ( who can't be bothered to join) is bizzarrly ironic when they seem to me to go out of the way to look after the interests of all climbers (who should all be getting involved more if they care about the future of trad climbing and access). Those include a very significant minority of climbers who engage in competition climbing and a much larger number who support this.
The majority of climbing these days is probably indoors and I fail to see a lack of support for competions there. In the very large number of non BMC member outdoor climbers I know I see no such clear majority anti-comp attitude, despite knowing a few like you claiming an anti comp majority based on no evidence. In the BMC membership we have surveys and at area meetings I attend (with the majority who are climbers and who are mainly motivated by trad and access to attend) pro BMC involvement in comps is the majority.
The BMC doesn't represent all walkers. It is trying to improve its service to hill, mountain and coastal walkers and scramblers where access, enviromental and cross activity issues are important to its existing members and where recruitment potential is good. More members means more influence and more activity in the areas the membership defines in a democratic organisation. The smaller number of hill walkers I know in the BMC seem no different in their range of views on comps to the much larger number of climbing members I know.
Blaming the BMC for not looking after your invented concerns in the vast majority of climbers ( who can't be bothered to join) is bizzarrly ironic when they seem to me to go out of the way to look after the interests of all climbers (who should all be getting involved more if they care about the future of trad climbing and access). Those include a very significant minority of climbers who engage in competition climbing and a much larger number who support this.
Post edited at 10:33
5
In reply to Marek:
I fully agree, The BCU went this way and it all went wrong; total lack of interest in grass roots with focus switched purely to elite and "performance", just look at the magazines and newsletters.
They now seem to be desperately restructuring (after some of the best people, both staff and local volunteers gave in) - stable door and bolting horse???
Hope this doesn't happen at the BMC.
I fully agree, The BCU went this way and it all went wrong; total lack of interest in grass roots with focus switched purely to elite and "performance", just look at the magazines and newsletters.
They now seem to be desperately restructuring (after some of the best people, both staff and local volunteers gave in) - stable door and bolting horse???
Hope this doesn't happen at the BMC.
3
In reply to Marek:
Two that I belong to are British Cycling and the Royal Yachting Association and both of those IMO do a good job for a range of membership interests.
> Which (governing bodies balance grass-roots and high-level competition)? I can't think of any.
Two that I belong to are British Cycling and the Royal Yachting Association and both of those IMO do a good job for a range of membership interests.
> I recognise that comps aren't going to go away and if that's what people want to do its up to them but I don't want my representative body misrepresenting me by diverting so much of its time and resources into an activity that I see as anathema to everything I value in climbing.
I think it would be useful to the discussion for you to quantify "so much of its time and resources". So, in 2014 and 2015 what was the annual income of the BMC for those years ( Sport England grant, membership fees etc). How much was expended on competitions (travel, team kit, training days etc). How much Officer time was allocated in comparison to all Officer time available?
In reply to pec:
The Royal Yachting Association represents cruising sailors and "governs" racing sailors. It can be done.
> But the point is those National GOVERNING Bodies have to apply rules etc to all levels of their sport which don't exist in non competetive climbing because those are formal sports with rules and regulations.
> Climbers need a representaive organisation not a governing body.
The Royal Yachting Association represents cruising sailors and "governs" racing sailors. It can be done.
1
In reply to caver:
This is an old argument and the information provided in response to past requests shows Sports England funding is significant income for the BMC and the proportional total spending on support for comps (including BMC staffing) is a smaller proportion of the BMC expenditure.
In the end we get the organisation we deserve. If only a tenth of conservative estimated numbers of trad climbers joined the BMC there would be no need to seek such funding. Part of the reason I joined individually was by my calculations the income from club members looks so small I suspect it can barely meet costs.
This is an old argument and the information provided in response to past requests shows Sports England funding is significant income for the BMC and the proportional total spending on support for comps (including BMC staffing) is a smaller proportion of the BMC expenditure.
In the end we get the organisation we deserve. If only a tenth of conservative estimated numbers of trad climbers joined the BMC there would be no need to seek such funding. Part of the reason I joined individually was by my calculations the income from club members looks so small I suspect it can barely meet costs.
1
In reply to pec:
Plenty of those NGBs deal with competitive and non-competitive sport. Read the Sport England and NGB funding strategies, as I have to. It all about participation, often informal participation. I've had someone from the ECB and the RFU talk about the parkrun model over the last few weeks.
Plenty of those NGBs deal with competitive and non-competitive sport. Read the Sport England and NGB funding strategies, as I have to. It all about participation, often informal participation. I've had someone from the ECB and the RFU talk about the parkrun model over the last few weeks.
In reply to paddledog:
Orienteering as well. It's not that big a leap from the "British Orienteering Federation" to "British orienteering", but since the rebranding they have concentrated almost entirely on the elite. The grass roots get no mention any more in their newsletter, which now takes about 2 minutes to skim through. I no longer feel wanted, and will probably not renew my membership next year.
Orienteering as well. It's not that big a leap from the "British Orienteering Federation" to "British orienteering", but since the rebranding they have concentrated almost entirely on the elite. The grass roots get no mention any more in their newsletter, which now takes about 2 minutes to skim through. I no longer feel wanted, and will probably not renew my membership next year.
4
In reply to Steve nevers:
Who would you prefer did it?
> Quote from the Artist Formerly Known as BMC's own website.
> "only 10,628 of our 82,536 members"
> How many people live in Britain? Why is such a small percentage club given the right to act as a representing body by Sport England? Also who asked Sport England to decide that?
Who would you prefer did it?
In reply to paddledog:
Yes, I've just noticed that the BCU has created a 'Canoe Britain' section to look after competition with hopefully the rest able to refocus on grass-root issue (e.g., access). Seems to be a lesson the BMC are ignoring.
Yes, I've just noticed that the BCU has created a 'Canoe Britain' section to look after competition with hopefully the rest able to refocus on grass-root issue (e.g., access). Seems to be a lesson the BMC are ignoring.
2
In reply to Dogwatch:
Does BC do much for a average non-competitive cyclist? The CTC seems more useful to most non-competitive cyclists. No idea about the RYA, but perhaps they have enough funds for 'focus' to be less of an issue?
> Two that I belong to are British Cycling and the Royal Yachting Association and both of those IMO do a good job for a range of membership interests.
Does BC do much for a average non-competitive cyclist? The CTC seems more useful to most non-competitive cyclists. No idea about the RYA, but perhaps they have enough funds for 'focus' to be less of an issue?
In reply to sheelba:
Interesting stuff. It seems that both can be done but that trying to do both at the same time can go badly wrong as well.
One part of the posts caught my interest:
"British Mountaineering Council (BMC) made it hard for us to connect with younger people: only 10,628 of our 82,536 members are under 25."
This is an utterly stupid statement as a reason to change the name as it's 12.9% which is broadly inline with the percent of the UK who are 15-24 (13.1%). Admittedly I'm ignoring under 15 but you surely can't expect many of them to be members.
Interesting stuff. It seems that both can be done but that trying to do both at the same time can go badly wrong as well.
One part of the posts caught my interest:
"British Mountaineering Council (BMC) made it hard for us to connect with younger people: only 10,628 of our 82,536 members are under 25."
This is an utterly stupid statement as a reason to change the name as it's 12.9% which is broadly inline with the percent of the UK who are 15-24 (13.1%). Admittedly I'm ignoring under 15 but you surely can't expect many of them to be members.
9
In reply to sheelba:
Young people have less money than older folk. Given that you can go climbing, walking, whatever without joining the BMC, and the main immediate benefit that the BMC brings (insurance) can be got cheaper elsewhere, I'm surprised the percentage of under 25s is as high as that.
I didn't join until I was in my 30s and with enough disposable income that I felt I could start contributing to the good work the BMC does (or did).
Young people have less money than older folk. Given that you can go climbing, walking, whatever without joining the BMC, and the main immediate benefit that the BMC brings (insurance) can be got cheaper elsewhere, I'm surprised the percentage of under 25s is as high as that.
I didn't join until I was in my 30s and with enough disposable income that I felt I could start contributing to the good work the BMC does (or did).
7
In reply to sheelba:
I agree that is a stupid statement: even allowing for family membership they are doing well with their membership numbers from under 25's. Even area meeting attendance isn't awful given past student and club input and the average extra affordability issues younger folk face.
I agree that is a stupid statement: even allowing for family membership they are doing well with their membership numbers from under 25's. Even area meeting attendance isn't awful given past student and club input and the average extra affordability issues younger folk face.
Post edited at 14:44
2
In reply to sheelba:
Ok so i realised i made a bit of a mistake. If you ignore the under 15's you need to remove them in the percentage figures as well but still I agree with you Simon given that young people I would expect are less likely to be able to afford the membership price and I suspect less likely to sign up to organisations like the BMC I think they are doing very well with young people.
If the number does not include student clubs it's wildly wrong
Ok so i realised i made a bit of a mistake. If you ignore the under 15's you need to remove them in the percentage figures as well but still I agree with you Simon given that young people I would expect are less likely to be able to afford the membership price and I suspect less likely to sign up to organisations like the BMC I think they are doing very well with young people.
If the number does not include student clubs it's wildly wrong
Post edited at 14:44
In reply to Dogwatch:
I would tend to disagree for BC. They are utterly shite when it comes to mountain biking. Only people I know who join them either do it for discounts or because they need the race license.
CTC also pick up a lot of the pieces when it comes to general cycling hence their recent rebrand.
> Two that I belong to are British Cycling
I would tend to disagree for BC. They are utterly shite when it comes to mountain biking. Only people I know who join them either do it for discounts or because they need the race license.
CTC also pick up a lot of the pieces when it comes to general cycling hence their recent rebrand.
2
In reply to mark_wellin:
let sportX-laser eagle uk run competition promotion
Is that for real? SportX-laser eagle??
let sportX-laser eagle uk run competition promotion
Is that for real? SportX-laser eagle??
In reply to Marek:
I mostly belong for the insurance cover for road cycling. I also find a reasonable amount of relevance in the email newsletters though I have no interest in competition. AFAIK the CTC has no relevance to the kind of cycling I do.
> Does BC do much for a average non-competitive cyclist? The CTC seems more useful to most non-competitive cyclists.
I mostly belong for the insurance cover for road cycling. I also find a reasonable amount of relevance in the email newsletters though I have no interest in competition. AFAIK the CTC has no relevance to the kind of cycling I do.
Post edited at 15:30
In reply to Siward:
haha, no mate. i strung a few buzz words together/ stole a joke from topgear (i-eaglehammerheadshark)
haha, no mate. i strung a few buzz words together/ stole a joke from topgear (i-eaglehammerheadshark)
In reply to KevinD:
CTC are better, and it looks they are improving, but still got a long way to do. Quite often on Singletrackworld you hear comments like "we need someone like the BMC"
Interesting that BC seems to make a selling point of it's membership that you are supporting the olympic athletes - something that would probably not go down to well in climbing!
> I would tend to disagree for BC. They are utterly shite when it comes to mountain biking.
CTC are better, and it looks they are improving, but still got a long way to do. Quite often on Singletrackworld you hear comments like "we need someone like the BMC"
Interesting that BC seems to make a selling point of it's membership that you are supporting the olympic athletes - something that would probably not go down to well in climbing!
2
In reply to Offwidth:
If that really is the case it only underlines the need for separate bodies to deal with the in/outdoor split so that the issues affecting outdoor climbing don't get diluted with the indoor stuff. In reality I suspect a large amount of the indoor climbing isn't actually by people who consider themselves climbers anyway, just people wanting some exercise that's not competitve (i.e. no commitment to a team needed) and is less boring than going to a gym. Many of these people probably barely even know about competitions and wouldn't have a problem with them if they did because they haven't come from an outdoor, non competitve, climbing as an adventure pursuit background.
I too know many climbers and yet I don't know a single one who has any interest in competitions whatsoever. I haven't said there is an anti comp majority, rather that those who are anti plus the ambivalent are in a majority. I base this on what people have posted whenever the issue crops up on here which I suspect is more representative than the views of people who attend area meetings.
Again, that fails to take into account the many non members who the BMC is still supposed to represent.
As I've already said, its not just that I think the majority of climbers would be better served by a BMC which wasn't involved in comps, I think competition climbers would be better served by an organisation that focussed on them.
> The majority of climbing these days is probably indoors and I fail to see a lack of support for competions there. >
If that really is the case it only underlines the need for separate bodies to deal with the in/outdoor split so that the issues affecting outdoor climbing don't get diluted with the indoor stuff. In reality I suspect a large amount of the indoor climbing isn't actually by people who consider themselves climbers anyway, just people wanting some exercise that's not competitve (i.e. no commitment to a team needed) and is less boring than going to a gym. Many of these people probably barely even know about competitions and wouldn't have a problem with them if they did because they haven't come from an outdoor, non competitve, climbing as an adventure pursuit background.
> In the very large number of non BMC member outdoor climbers I know I see no such clear majority anti-comp attitude, despite knowing a few like you claiming an anti comp majority based on no evidence. >
I too know many climbers and yet I don't know a single one who has any interest in competitions whatsoever. I haven't said there is an anti comp majority, rather that those who are anti plus the ambivalent are in a majority. I base this on what people have posted whenever the issue crops up on here which I suspect is more representative than the views of people who attend area meetings.
> In the BMC membership we have surveys and at area meetings I attend (with the majority who are climbers and who are mainly motivated by trad and access to attend) pro BMC involvement in comps is the majority. >
Again, that fails to take into account the many non members who the BMC is still supposed to represent.
As I've already said, its not just that I think the majority of climbers would be better served by a BMC which wasn't involved in comps, I think competition climbers would be better served by an organisation that focussed on them.
1
In reply to Marek:
Similarly British Cycling - conflict between representing amateur sports people. cycling clubs, delivering olympic medals and somehow representing anyone who rides a bike...
ground up .v. top down...
> Which ones? I can't think of any. But I can offer British Canoeing as an example of how it goes wrong (shift of focus from grass-root access to competitions and medals).
Similarly British Cycling - conflict between representing amateur sports people. cycling clubs, delivering olympic medals and somehow representing anyone who rides a bike...
ground up .v. top down...
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
True but they do seem to have it as a goal. Unlike BC where if you aint racing on the road or velodrome preferably at an international level it seems that they arent interested.
> CTC are better, and it looks they are improving, but still got a long way to do.
True but they do seem to have it as a goal. Unlike BC where if you aint racing on the road or velodrome preferably at an international level it seems that they arent interested.
In reply to pec:
I'd like to know where you get this from. In sports like football maybe, but I've never seen any suggestion anywhere - not even in the most alarmist ramblings of a dyed in the wool traditionalist - that competition-style rules would ever be even considered for applying to recreational climbing. Why would they?
It's sad but the debate on this seems to be even less based in reality than was the Brexit referendum, and look where that got us.
> But the point is those National GOVERNING Bodies have to apply rules etc to all levels of their sport which don't exist in non competetive climbing because those are formal sports with rules and regulations.
I'd like to know where you get this from. In sports like football maybe, but I've never seen any suggestion anywhere - not even in the most alarmist ramblings of a dyed in the wool traditionalist - that competition-style rules would ever be even considered for applying to recreational climbing. Why would they?
It's sad but the debate on this seems to be even less based in reality than was the Brexit referendum, and look where that got us.
2
1
1
In reply to pec:
Climbing is so broad than unless some participates in all aspects then they by your logic they are going to misrepresent you. But I don't see how supporting the bits of climbing you don't do is misrepresenting you. As long they're also actively working on the bits of climbing you are engaged in surely that's fine.
In terms of competition climbing the funding to Team GB by the BMC is woefully inadequate as it is. Only a very small group of climbers particpate regularly in comps. Maybe 2 to 5 in bouldering and 0 - 3 in lead.
I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect the people doing the access negotiations are already completely separate group from those doing the comp stuff. But if not then that's a good point.
I would think there are both pros and cons to having one larger or two smaller groups. For the larger group for instance there is shared resources and shared workload - for instance just one person or group is required for, say, memberships or the web site. A larger group with a higher total membership might have more power in certain situations and more flexibility in allocating resources where they're most needed.
> but I don't want my representative body misrepresenting me by diverting so much of its time and resources into an activity that I see as anathema to everything I value in climbing
Climbing is so broad than unless some participates in all aspects then they by your logic they are going to misrepresent you. But I don't see how supporting the bits of climbing you don't do is misrepresenting you. As long they're also actively working on the bits of climbing you are engaged in surely that's fine.
In terms of competition climbing the funding to Team GB by the BMC is woefully inadequate as it is. Only a very small group of climbers particpate regularly in comps. Maybe 2 to 5 in bouldering and 0 - 3 in lead.
> I also think that competition climbers would be better represented by a governing body that wasn't distracted by negotiating over access
I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect the people doing the access negotiations are already completely separate group from those doing the comp stuff. But if not then that's a good point.
I would think there are both pros and cons to having one larger or two smaller groups. For the larger group for instance there is shared resources and shared workload - for instance just one person or group is required for, say, memberships or the web site. A larger group with a higher total membership might have more power in certain situations and more flexibility in allocating resources where they're most needed.
In reply to stp:
Copied from the long thread but somewhat lost amongst the vitriol... of all the suggestions I've seen this is a really good one and I'd be supportive of the rebranding used in this way.
In reply to beth:
This is a great idea.
Copied from the long thread but somewhat lost amongst the vitriol... of all the suggestions I've seen this is a really good one and I'd be supportive of the rebranding used in this way.
In reply to beth:
> How about keeping the British Mountaineering Council exactly how it is or rather was, keeping the history and gravitas. Split off "Climb England" with its trendy logo to concentrate on sport climbing, encouraging young people to participate, everything climbing related/etc. You can then put on appropriate documentation/websites/press releases "backed by the British Mountaineering Council". Make CE a separate entity, with its own webzine/app/mag chock full of climbing. Leaving Summit to become much more balanced in it's coverage of BMC activities, like hillwalking and general mountaineering. Then you might actually attract hillwalkers to join - a good story told through the content in a magazine is crucial as for many people who don't go to area meetings have no other contact than when they open the mag. And frankly for the last few years I was a member Summit just looked like a climbing club mag.
> Climb England would also fit in with the Climb Cymru, and Climb Scotland which was started by the MCofS last year.
This is a great idea.
9
In reply to john arran:
I've never suggested that was the case, I've no idea where you get that from. I'm saying that its hard for the same organisation to perform two separate roles (governing body and representative body) without its priorities getting skewed towards one at the cost of the other.
> I'd like to know where you get this from. In sports like football maybe, but I've never seen any suggestion anywhere - not even in the most alarmist ramblings of a dyed in the wool traditionalist - that competition-style rules would ever be even considered for applying to recreational climbing. Why would they? >
I've never suggested that was the case, I've no idea where you get that from. I'm saying that its hard for the same organisation to perform two separate roles (governing body and representative body) without its priorities getting skewed towards one at the cost of the other.
1
In reply to stp:
My point is that all other aspects of climbing lie on a continuum with overlap between them, it doesn't matter whether you're going bouldering or trad climbing at Stanage, parking and access affects you in the same way etc etc.
Competitions lie in a separate box all on its own with all the politics of formal competetive sport that go with it as well the costs of competing worldwide.
So since there are so few people doing top level comps it stands to reason that they get a disproportionate amount of funding per person. If they had their own organisation they could raise their own funding from government bodies, sponsors or wherever and its theirs to do what they want with so the rest of us can't complain that our representative body is skewed towards them. That's another reason why its better for them as well to have their own body.
But the overall direction of travel of the BMC still has to be prioritised by somebody within the orgaisation even if the actual work is compartmentalised.
> Climbing is so broad than unless some participates in all aspects then they by your logic they are going to misrepresent you. But I don't see how supporting the bits of climbing you don't do is misrepresenting you. As long they're also actively working on the bits of climbing you are engaged in surely that's fine. >
My point is that all other aspects of climbing lie on a continuum with overlap between them, it doesn't matter whether you're going bouldering or trad climbing at Stanage, parking and access affects you in the same way etc etc.
Competitions lie in a separate box all on its own with all the politics of formal competetive sport that go with it as well the costs of competing worldwide.
> In terms of competition climbing the funding to Team GB by the BMC is woefully inadequate as it is. Only a very small group of climbers particpate regularly in comps. Maybe 2 to 5 in bouldering and 0 - 3 in lead. >
So since there are so few people doing top level comps it stands to reason that they get a disproportionate amount of funding per person. If they had their own organisation they could raise their own funding from government bodies, sponsors or wherever and its theirs to do what they want with so the rest of us can't complain that our representative body is skewed towards them. That's another reason why its better for them as well to have their own body.
> I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect the people doing the access negotiations are already completely separate group from those doing the comp stuff. But if not then that's a good point. >
But the overall direction of travel of the BMC still has to be prioritised by somebody within the orgaisation even if the actual work is compartmentalised.
2
In reply to pec:
EXCEPT that the people who do indoor climbing heavily overlap with the people who do outdoor climbing. If the BMC split into 'indoor' and 'outdoor' organizations, where would they get their volunteers who run the organization?
If (as some seem to believe) 'indoor' people have taken over the BMC, then the BMC-outdoors would be totally buggered as there wouldn't be anybody left to run the organization...
What's more likely the majority of the volunteers for the BMC-indoors and BMC-outdoors would end up splitting their time between the two organizations, until someone realised it was bloody silly and joined them up again. What unites the hillwalkers, outdoor climbers, mountaineers and indoor climbers is that while the activities are all quite different the skills required are similar and most importantly they are done by, largely, the same people applying those skills to the different aspects of climbing.
On an unrelated note, my University club got Sport England funding for courses for outdoor climbing.
On a further unrelated note, the claim made by many people that they have 'never heard' people talk about 'climbing' a hill is just silly. Yes, plenty of climbers argue that 'climbing' Snowdon isn't climbing, but that's still how 90% of people talk about it. Ever heard of anyone asking about 'going for a walk up Mont Blanc' or 'going for a walk up Everest'? If I say I am going to 'climb Tryfan', it's quite a different thing to saying I am 'going climbing on Tryfan'. You can definitely climb a summit.
> Competitions lie in a separate box all on its own with all the politics of formal competetive sport that go with it as well the costs of competing worldwide.
EXCEPT that the people who do indoor climbing heavily overlap with the people who do outdoor climbing. If the BMC split into 'indoor' and 'outdoor' organizations, where would they get their volunteers who run the organization?
If (as some seem to believe) 'indoor' people have taken over the BMC, then the BMC-outdoors would be totally buggered as there wouldn't be anybody left to run the organization...
What's more likely the majority of the volunteers for the BMC-indoors and BMC-outdoors would end up splitting their time between the two organizations, until someone realised it was bloody silly and joined them up again. What unites the hillwalkers, outdoor climbers, mountaineers and indoor climbers is that while the activities are all quite different the skills required are similar and most importantly they are done by, largely, the same people applying those skills to the different aspects of climbing.
On an unrelated note, my University club got Sport England funding for courses for outdoor climbing.
On a further unrelated note, the claim made by many people that they have 'never heard' people talk about 'climbing' a hill is just silly. Yes, plenty of climbers argue that 'climbing' Snowdon isn't climbing, but that's still how 90% of people talk about it. Ever heard of anyone asking about 'going for a walk up Mont Blanc' or 'going for a walk up Everest'? If I say I am going to 'climb Tryfan', it's quite a different thing to saying I am 'going climbing on Tryfan'. You can definitely climb a summit.
Post edited at 11:56
2
1
In reply to sheelba:
Since the "NEWS: BMC to Be Re-named 'Climb Britain'" topic has been archived, I'll post on here.
If the BMC had said "We're introducing the equivalent of a trading name - 'Climb Britain', which we shall be increasingly using instead of the BMC name and logo in most situations. However the BMC name and logo will still be used where it's considered the most appropriate." and given the reasons for this new trading name, then I think most people would have said - fair enough, but I don't like the new logo.
Presenting it as a fait acompli complete namechange/rebranding with a "but BMC will still be the legal name" afterthought has been a really good illustration of how NOT to implement a change - just go look at any advice/books etc. on change management and they'll all say that communication and consultation is paramount.
Since the "NEWS: BMC to Be Re-named 'Climb Britain'" topic has been archived, I'll post on here.
If the BMC had said "We're introducing the equivalent of a trading name - 'Climb Britain', which we shall be increasingly using instead of the BMC name and logo in most situations. However the BMC name and logo will still be used where it's considered the most appropriate." and given the reasons for this new trading name, then I think most people would have said - fair enough, but I don't like the new logo.
Presenting it as a fait acompli complete namechange/rebranding with a "but BMC will still be the legal name" afterthought has been a really good illustration of how NOT to implement a change - just go look at any advice/books etc. on change management and they'll all say that communication and consultation is paramount.
6
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Having had a quick look at who's who in the BMC:
CEO - Dave Turnbull
Deputy CEO - Nick Colton
Executive Committee:
Rehan Siddiqui (President)
Rupert Davies (Vice-President)
Emma Flaherty (Vice-President)
Nick Kurth (Vice-President)
John Simpson (Honorary Treasurer)
Dave Turnbull (Chief Executive)
Brian Smith (Independent Director)
Of the names I know (half), they don't appear to be 'indoor' people, unless the Grand Jorasses suddenly has a roof over it?
> If (as some seem to believe) 'indoor' people have taken over the BMC, then the BMC-outdoors would be totally buggered as there wouldn't be anybody left to run the organization...
Having had a quick look at who's who in the BMC:
CEO - Dave Turnbull
Deputy CEO - Nick Colton
Executive Committee:
Rehan Siddiqui (President)
Rupert Davies (Vice-President)
Emma Flaherty (Vice-President)
Nick Kurth (Vice-President)
John Simpson (Honorary Treasurer)
Dave Turnbull (Chief Executive)
Brian Smith (Independent Director)
Of the names I know (half), they don't appear to be 'indoor' people, unless the Grand Jorasses suddenly has a roof over it?
1
1
In reply to galpinos: Hmm, I've seen the Deputy CEO down the wall several times, never seen him on the Grand Jorasses
1
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I seem to remember him winning the leading ladder for his age as well? He's gone soft......
Edit: 2008, https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-leading-ladder-2007-08-grand-final-results
I seem to remember him winning the leading ladder for his age as well? He's gone soft......
Edit: 2008, https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-leading-ladder-2007-08-grand-final-results
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to KevinD:
Cycling is not the best example, BC (or BCF) were seen as more for amateur cycling club cyclists, but even here there are complaints that BC ignore the amateur racing scene (e.g. lack of support to race organisers) to focus on the Olympic squad. Non club/racing related cycling issues were mainly championed by CTC, BC has kinda moved into their truff but still seem to be more interested in growing cycling participation in events like sportives, where you have to pay. CTC still, I think, does a better job for those who cycle for commuting/touring/casual cycling, e.g cyclists defense fund.
Cycling is not the best example, BC (or BCF) were seen as more for amateur cycling club cyclists, but even here there are complaints that BC ignore the amateur racing scene (e.g. lack of support to race organisers) to focus on the Olympic squad. Non club/racing related cycling issues were mainly championed by CTC, BC has kinda moved into their truff but still seem to be more interested in growing cycling participation in events like sportives, where you have to pay. CTC still, I think, does a better job for those who cycle for commuting/touring/casual cycling, e.g cyclists defense fund.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Of course there's a big overlap and I certainly haven't suggested that "indoor" people have taken over the BMC. I'm saying that the BMC has become overwhelmingly pro competitions and that massively fasils to refelect its membership and skews its priorities.
I'm saying that a separate organisation which deals with competitions (I don't really care whether it also deals with non competetive indoor climbing as well or not) would serve competition climbers better and a non competition representative body would better serve everyone else.
Which organisation people choose to join as either members, staff or volunteers is up to them and their priorites. Staffing either shouldn't be a problem as most staff/volunteers only deal with one aspect of climbing anyway. Indeed its perfectly possible for people to be members of both organisations if they want, plenty of people do that already. I know people who cross over the disciplines of fell running, cross country running, orienteering and track and field athletics. Goodness knows how many organisations have a stake in that lot but its all just running in one form or another.
> EXCEPT that the people who do indoor climbing heavily overlap with the people who do outdoor climbing. If the BMC split into 'indoor' and 'outdoor' organizations, where would they get their volunteers who run the organization? etc etc >
Of course there's a big overlap and I certainly haven't suggested that "indoor" people have taken over the BMC. I'm saying that the BMC has become overwhelmingly pro competitions and that massively fasils to refelect its membership and skews its priorities.
I'm saying that a separate organisation which deals with competitions (I don't really care whether it also deals with non competetive indoor climbing as well or not) would serve competition climbers better and a non competition representative body would better serve everyone else.
Which organisation people choose to join as either members, staff or volunteers is up to them and their priorites. Staffing either shouldn't be a problem as most staff/volunteers only deal with one aspect of climbing anyway. Indeed its perfectly possible for people to be members of both organisations if they want, plenty of people do that already. I know people who cross over the disciplines of fell running, cross country running, orienteering and track and field athletics. Goodness knows how many organisations have a stake in that lot but its all just running in one form or another.
3
In reply to sheelba:
You've got a split already - it's called climbUK/the BMC and the Ramblers. Splitting indoors and outdoors makes no sense.
Or you can have a dual structure. Lots of countries do - France, Norway, US ( AAC and e Access Fund).
You've got a split already - it's called climbUK/the BMC and the Ramblers. Splitting indoors and outdoors makes no sense.
Or you can have a dual structure. Lots of countries do - France, Norway, US ( AAC and e Access Fund).
1
In reply to wbo:
So are you suggesting that hill-walking BMC members should leave and join the Ramblers instead? They've got far more in common with them than they have with indoor climbers.
> You've got a split already - it's called climbUK/the BMC and the Ramblers
So are you suggesting that hill-walking BMC members should leave and join the Ramblers instead? They've got far more in common with them than they have with indoor climbers.
In reply to pec:
Wait, are you actually arguing that the BMC/Climb Britain is encouraging outdoor climbing *too much*?
I don't think you can really argue that the BMC/CB is too focused on indoor climbing and not supporting outdoor climbers if you're simultaneously arguing that it's responsible for there being too many outdoor climbers.
Surely on that basis, you'd prefer the BMC/CB/whatever to concentrate *more* on competitions and other activities to encourage people to keep their climbing indoors, thus leaving the outdoors to a select few to enjoy in peace without the grubby masses cluttering up the place?
To be honest, it seems generally odd to complain that a climbing organization is encouraging people to get involved in climbing. Do you not think there are any benefits from people getting a chance to discover and fall in love with climbing when they might not otherwise have done so?
> Even ignoring competitions, the BMC seems to have been actively promoting participation in climbing in a way that, as I understood it, it was constitutionally never set up to do and which by increasing pressure of numbers actually exacerbates many of the problems it should be trying to solve such as erosion, litter, pressure on sensitive environments etc.
Wait, are you actually arguing that the BMC/Climb Britain is encouraging outdoor climbing *too much*?
I don't think you can really argue that the BMC/CB is too focused on indoor climbing and not supporting outdoor climbers if you're simultaneously arguing that it's responsible for there being too many outdoor climbers.
Surely on that basis, you'd prefer the BMC/CB/whatever to concentrate *more* on competitions and other activities to encourage people to keep their climbing indoors, thus leaving the outdoors to a select few to enjoy in peace without the grubby masses cluttering up the place?
To be honest, it seems generally odd to complain that a climbing organization is encouraging people to get involved in climbing. Do you not think there are any benefits from people getting a chance to discover and fall in love with climbing when they might not otherwise have done so?
1
In reply to slab_happy:
I don't think anyone thinks that. But the word is "discover". I don't think its the BMC's job to actively propmote.
> Do you not think there are any benefits from people getting a chance to discover and fall in love with climbing when they might not otherwise have done so?
I don't think anyone thinks that. But the word is "discover". I don't think its the BMC's job to actively propmote.
In reply to Max factor:
..... > Climb England would also fit in with the Climb Cymru, and Climb Scotland which was started by the MCofS last year.
Seconded (or thirded).
> Copied from the long thread but somewhat lost amongst the vitriol... of all the suggestions I've seen this is a really good one and I'd be supportive of the rebranding used in this way.
> In reply to beth:
..... > Climb England would also fit in with the Climb Cymru, and Climb Scotland which was started by the MCofS last year.
> This is a great idea.
Seconded (or thirded).
4
In reply to slab_happy:
One of my criticisms of the BMC is simply that it tries to do too much, in that respect there's no contradiction between thinking it shouldn't be actively encouraging people to climb outdoors and supporting comps, they are both two things it doesn't need to do and distract it from its core purpose.
Its supposed to be a representative body and should represent the interests of people who've chosen to climb. As far as I'm concerned anybody who wants to should be able to take up climbing but its an inescapable reality that we put pressure on the environment and the more of us there are the more pressure there is. Its really not hard to get into climbing these days, far easier than its ever been. If you're going to be a climber and stay alive you need a bit of self reliance and initiative, if you can't overcome the minimal entry hurdles that exist you're probably not cut out for it anyway.
I'll not be posting any further replies, I've said what I think in several posts and you can agree or disagree but I'm heading off tomorrow for a month's climbing and need to pack. I'll see what the BMC is called when I get back.
Cheers.
> Wait, are you actually arguing that the BMC/Climb Britain is encouraging outdoor climbing *too much*?
> I don't think you can really argue that the BMC/CB is too focused on indoor climbing and not supporting outdoor climbers if you're simultaneously arguing that it's responsible for there being too many outdoor climbers. >
One of my criticisms of the BMC is simply that it tries to do too much, in that respect there's no contradiction between thinking it shouldn't be actively encouraging people to climb outdoors and supporting comps, they are both two things it doesn't need to do and distract it from its core purpose.
Its supposed to be a representative body and should represent the interests of people who've chosen to climb. As far as I'm concerned anybody who wants to should be able to take up climbing but its an inescapable reality that we put pressure on the environment and the more of us there are the more pressure there is. Its really not hard to get into climbing these days, far easier than its ever been. If you're going to be a climber and stay alive you need a bit of self reliance and initiative, if you can't overcome the minimal entry hurdles that exist you're probably not cut out for it anyway.
I'll not be posting any further replies, I've said what I think in several posts and you can agree or disagree but I'm heading off tomorrow for a month's climbing and need to pack. I'll see what the BMC is called when I get back.
Cheers.
2
In reply to galpinos:
You've got Dave Turbull twice!
> Having had a quick look at who's who in the BMC:
> CEO - Dave Turnbull
> Deputy CEO - Nick Colton
> Executive Committee:
> Rehan Siddiqui (President)
> Rupert Davies (Vice-President)
> Emma Flaherty (Vice-President)
> Nick Kurth (Vice-President)
> John Simpson (Honorary Treasurer)
> Dave Turnbull (Chief Executive)
> Brian Smith (Independent Director)
> Of the names I know (half), they don't appear to be 'indoor' people, unless the Grand Jorasses suddenly has a roof over it?
You've got Dave Turbull twice!
In reply to Michael Hood:
You might like to look up 'Colton Macintyre'. http://www.chamonixtopo.com/alpine-climbing/colton-macintyre-grandes-jorass... The deputy CEO doesn't just pull on plastic you know.
> Hmm, I've seen the Deputy CEO down the wall several times, never seen him on the Grand Jorasses
You might like to look up 'Colton Macintyre'. http://www.chamonixtopo.com/alpine-climbing/colton-macintyre-grandes-jorass... The deputy CEO doesn't just pull on plastic you know.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
I suspect he knows that.
> You might like to look up 'Colton Macintyre'. http://www.chamonixtopo.com/alpine-climbing/colton-macintyre-grandes-jorass... The deputy CEO doesn't just pull on plastic you know.
I suspect he knows that.
1
In reply to pec:
I can see your logic. But I can also see there are many different ways to group the different climbing activities and each one is just as valid as any other. Personally I have far more interest in competitions than hill walking. But I'm not arguing that the BMC should create a separate organization for hill walkers.
Maybe but running the team costs a certain amount to achieve it's goals so you can't just price every activity in proportion to every other. You could also look at it as the team representing the whole country.
Personally I think the team is currently massively underfunded as it is and that's part of the reason we under perform in certain aspects of competition climbing. Admittedly the bouldering side of things has improved a lot this past year - though we're still way behind the Japanese.
> My point is that all other aspects of climbing lie on a continuum with overlap between them, it doesn't matter whether you're going bouldering or trad climbing at Stanage, parking and access affects you in the same way etc etc.
Competitions lie in a separate box all on its ownI can see your logic. But I can also see there are many different ways to group the different climbing activities and each one is just as valid as any other. Personally I have far more interest in competitions than hill walking. But I'm not arguing that the BMC should create a separate organization for hill walkers.
> So since there are so few people doing top level comps it stands to reason that they get a disproportionate amount of funding per person.
Maybe but running the team costs a certain amount to achieve it's goals so you can't just price every activity in proportion to every other. You could also look at it as the team representing the whole country.
Personally I think the team is currently massively underfunded as it is and that's part of the reason we under perform in certain aspects of competition climbing. Admittedly the bouldering side of things has improved a lot this past year - though we're still way behind the Japanese.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Copy and paste from the BMC website, my apologies (he has more than one role).
Copy and paste from the BMC website, my apologies (he has more than one role).
In reply to sheelba:
What was the proposal called back in the day by those who felt that the BMC didn't represent sport climbers and objected to not being allowed to have competitions? British Climbing Union? British Federation of Sport Climbers? Maybe John Dunne et al have some of the old proposals and could shed some light on the proposed schism? I know it is going back nearly 40 years to the time of the Malham / Hodge Close 'competitions'.
What was the proposal called back in the day by those who felt that the BMC didn't represent sport climbers and objected to not being allowed to have competitions? British Climbing Union? British Federation of Sport Climbers? Maybe John Dunne et al have some of the old proposals and could shed some light on the proposed schism? I know it is going back nearly 40 years to the time of the Malham / Hodge Close 'competitions'.
In reply to pec:
Of course the BMC would say that they are a 'representative body' and NOT a 'governing body'. Its just that Sport England don't speak our language.
> Its very dfficult to see how one organisation can be both a governing body representing a very small number of climbers and at the same time be a representative organisation for the vast majority of its members, not to mention many times more people again whose interests it claims to represent even though they aren't members at all.
Of course the BMC would say that they are a 'representative body' and NOT a 'governing body'. Its just that Sport England don't speak our language.
2
In reply to pec:
I think you are very wrong there. Most folks at the BMC are just climbers, few of whom have a competition background, who recognise that some people like to compete.
Now there you DO have a good point. The argument was always both 'how can you promote an activity which could kill you' and the environmental considerations you mention. The BMC always shied away from 'promotion' and instead went for 'development' of the existing cohort of climbers.
We are, however, living in a society which sees the promotion of active life-styles as a good thing. And so getting folks out walking and climbing is 'positive'.
> It has seemed evident for some time to me that the increasingly slick, highly self promoting BMC is dominated by people who are very pro comps in a way that most members aren't
I think you are very wrong there. Most folks at the BMC are just climbers, few of whom have a competition background, who recognise that some people like to compete.
> the BMC seems to have been actively promoting participation in climbing in a way that, as I understood it, it was constitutionally never set up to do and which by increasing pressure of numbers actually exacerbates many of the problems it should be trying to solve such as erosion, litter, pressure on sensitive environments etc.
Now there you DO have a good point. The argument was always both 'how can you promote an activity which could kill you' and the environmental considerations you mention. The BMC always shied away from 'promotion' and instead went for 'development' of the existing cohort of climbers.
We are, however, living in a society which sees the promotion of active life-styles as a good thing. And so getting folks out walking and climbing is 'positive'.
1
In reply to sheelba:
If you think this is a problem, try racing mountain bikes. To enter almost any serious race in the UK you have to be a British Cycling member. To race national level you also have to have a British Cycling race licence.
British Cycling do not represent mountain bikers at all. They focus on road and commuting. When I raced it was really annoying that I had to pay £80 a year to an organisation which didn't represent my sport and even worse, they often failed to send commisaires to events meaning riders would get no points at the end of the day.
BMC is a whole heap better than that. No organisation could adequately represent every sport in the mountains but split up, it may not be able to provide insurance etc which is essential for some crags.
If you think this is a problem, try racing mountain bikes. To enter almost any serious race in the UK you have to be a British Cycling member. To race national level you also have to have a British Cycling race licence.
British Cycling do not represent mountain bikers at all. They focus on road and commuting. When I raced it was really annoying that I had to pay £80 a year to an organisation which didn't represent my sport and even worse, they often failed to send commisaires to events meaning riders would get no points at the end of the day.
BMC is a whole heap better than that. No organisation could adequately represent every sport in the mountains but split up, it may not be able to provide insurance etc which is essential for some crags.
2
1
In reply to Andy Say:
I can back Andy up on that one. "The BMC", by which I think you mean the Didsbury staff, are supportive of comps, but not pro comps, and are, as he says, climbers / mountaineers who accept comps as part of the broad church of climbing
Ian W,
Chair, BMC comps.
> I think you are very wrong there. Most folks at the BMC are just climbers, few of whom have a competition background, who recognise that some people like to compete.
I can back Andy up on that one. "The BMC", by which I think you mean the Didsbury staff, are supportive of comps, but not pro comps, and are, as he says, climbers / mountaineers who accept comps as part of the broad church of climbing
Ian W,
Chair, BMC comps.
In reply to Andy Say:
I wish it was intentional. My accountancy background had intentional humour beaten out of me..........
Anyway, no time for banter; as head of the comps committee, i've got to go find other underhand, machiavellian means of diverting access and conservation funds to the great god of the Olympic Dream.........
And to whoever disliked this post, sorry mate, but couldn't resist; some of the conspiracy theories are pretty far fetched.
I wish it was intentional. My accountancy background had intentional humour beaten out of me..........
Anyway, no time for banter; as head of the comps committee, i've got to go find other underhand, machiavellian means of diverting access and conservation funds to the great god of the Olympic Dream.........
And to whoever disliked this post, sorry mate, but couldn't resist; some of the conspiracy theories are pretty far fetched.
Post edited at 13:46
1
3
In reply to Andy Say:
> I know it is going back nearly 40 years to the time of the Malham / Hodge Close 'competitions'.
40 years?! I don't think John Dunne was organising climbing competitions whilst still in primary school. This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...