UKC

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) met today in St Petersburg, Russia to decide which sports will be put forward to the next stage of selection for the Olympics. Unfortunately climbing has not made the cut.

In a statement on the IOC website, they announced:


"The Executive Board (EB)...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68090

In reply to UKC News:

"Unfortunately climbing has not made the cut."

Climbing website owners must be gnashing their teeth.

In reply to UKC News: Great news!

In reply to UKC News:

I'm not really bothered myself, if anything I'm pleased, but looking at it as dispassionately as possible I'd have thought by most criteria climbing is a much better candidate for inclusion than any of the others listed (other than possibly squash). That said I'd imagine that the decision has little to do with sporting merit.

In reply to UKC News: Good!

In reply to UKC News:

Good news.

In reply to Tyler: This is my exact thinking.

In reply to UKC News:

Result

In reply to UKC News: Fantastic News! Now maybe the BMC will stop aggressively promoting sport and competition climbing and abandon its competition climbing programme.

In reply to redsulike:

In what way is the BMC "aggressively promoting" sport climbing? I'm a BMC member and a sport climber and see no evidence of this

In reply to UKC News:

Yup, pleased too.

In reply to redsulike:

Yep, lets hope that the BMC tells all those young, talented and enthusiatic people to piss off and leave the climbing to old farts like you and me.

In reply to UKC News: Am I the only person who's a little disappointed? I find the IFSC streams really scintillating and its a shame there isn't the option of developing these competitions on a wider platform.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Or maybe they could be told that climbing is not about medals or proving you are better than other people, but about personal achievements and having fun?

In reply to Mr Lopez: Bang on the nail Sir :0)

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Aren't you contradicting yourself ? Surely no-one should be told how they should enjoy their climbing. Some people want it competitive, some don't, but the whole ethos of climbing is that you can enjoy it either way

In reply to UKC News: I presume they couldn't guarantee wet weather, queues, top-ropers, university groups and enough passers-by asking if they were practicing climbing.

Well, except in China but they've hosted it recently.

I think it's a good thing, on the whole. We don't want more smelly people sat in pubs on wet days talking arse than we've got already.

T.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Tell that to Mina next time she's topping out Careless Torque!

Shauna, Ned, Mina et al... all seem quite good at "real climbing".

Personally, I think it's a shame as within the current British team there are some great role models for sport generally (see above).

In reply to Tom Briggs:

And your point is?

In reply to Tyler: I have to disagreee. Climbing is not a sport in the sense that wrestling and Karate, for example, are. Sport climbing is being manufactured and marketed as a 'sport' by the vested interests of wall owners, gear manufacturers and climbers seeking sponsorship to fund their climbing lifestyle.
The bid to gain support was recently changed to make it a 'triathlon' type event in ther hope it would be more attractive to the Olympic Committee. I take this as proof of the point. If the bid could be improved by wearing a tellytubby suit with a feather up your arse they would do it!
It is time to put a stop to this nonsense now and time the BMC severed its newly formed links with the IFSC and time also it started listening to its membership instead of pushing through 'top down' initiatives and throwing away the subscriptions of its members at an organisation as corrupt as the IOC.

In reply to Chris the Tall: You're not old!

In reply to Chris the Tall: When I was a child we used to have competitions to see who could pee the highest. We loved the competition but I wouldn't make it an Olympic Sport!

In reply to UKC News: Good news, climbing is better out of the Olympics and the Olympics is better off without climbing!

In reply to Mr Lopez: I think his point is that competition climbing often breeds strong able climbers who then go outside and tend to be a lot better at and do a lot more of the "real climbing" you lot support.

Same happened with me, I used to dabble in the outdoors but pushing myself on plastic and competing was my main focus. I've not done a comp now for 10 years because I'm old and weak but never the less have moved on to enjoy a wide spread of what climbing has to offer, be it indoors, trad, bouldering or sport and because of my training ethos and base strength from gained from competition climbing I'm doing it all at a pretty healthy grade that enables me to enjoy a lot more routes than the typical fat punter is ever able to dream of.

I think something like 80%+ never climb above E1 yet its the moan that indoor climbers are missing out on the crags.

In reply to UKC News:

I love that 'unfortunately'. Unfortunately for who? I think for climbing as we know it, not very commercial or 'star-orientated' (though bad enough already as it is), it's rather good news.

In reply to redsulike:

Do you have a different definition of sport climbing to most people or are you just avoiding my question? In what way are the BMC aggressively promoting sport climbing? (as in climbing on bolts outdoors?)

In reply to UKC News:

Good!

In reply to UKC News:

Good on two counts: Squash in, climbing circus out

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I think Ash is totally right! We should be encouraging more youth to get into our sport, through organised competition and organised event style climbing. For one, it allows kids to enter into the sport in a way that they understand as it coincides with the natural urge for a kid to be competetive and have fun competing against their friends.
The more indoor youth climbers that we generate, the more future outdoor climbers we are creating. By default we would be encouraging a percentage of those kids to move into the outdoors and appreciate it in the same way that we all do.......through awesome rock climbing!
To deny climbing to the masses through saying "hooray it hasn't made it to a wider audience", that attitude reeks of old farts, who are happy to enjoy their own piece of heaven out on the crags, but not to share it with others. Classic Selfish attitude.
Climbing for the Many, not for the Elite Few!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


For anybody with a vested interest in the commercialisation of climbing, for a start.

I think the BMC has lost its way in pursuing this matter, and I'm pleased to see the back of it (at least for now.)

In reply to mountainman147:


Weird comment. Nobody is denying climbing to anybody.

In reply to UKC News:

Bit of a shame. Better to have kids doing something healthy and constructive at a climbing wall than loitering on street corners. The Olympics would have helped promote the sport, and encouraged youths to try their local wall - which are now prevalent in the UK.

In reply to UKC News:

Excellent - climbing won!

In reply to UKC News:

...relief all round...the last thing we need is climbing in the Olympics...
ANdy

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Are you categorising training and indoor climbing as 'competition climbing'?

You know, it may come as a surprise, but it is possible to train hard without a carrot in the form of a medal in sight. Simple grade progression or the build up to certain routes is enough motivation for a vast amount of people.

And if those 80% don't have the interest or feel like putting the effort to climb above E1, then so what? They are happy being out climbing for the sake of climbing, and not on a quest for the next tick, 8a.nu ranking, or McDonalds star to stitch to their badge.

That doesn't make them any lesser, neither it makes you any better. It's not about comparing yourself against others, but comparing your yesterday-self with your today-self.

In reply to Tyler:

Other than popularity I suppose - climbing was trailing a long way behind all of those nominated in all of the various online polls I saw.

In reply to mountainman147:


You don't see a problem with this? Where would they go? There are only about five crags between London and Glasgow which would interest lead competition climbers for more Ghana couple of visits and they are already pretty crowded.


Doesn't competition by its nature eschew this attitude though? If the route into climbing is via competitions will the coaches, teams and the BMC have time for the ones who turn out to be a bit shit? At the moment climbing is pretty inclusive and attracts a lot of people who naturally shy away from the competitive nature of other sports (or in my case were just not very good at them so couldn't find anywhere to go and 'do' sport as football clubs, athletic clubs, karate clubs etc have no time for the slow, weak and uncoordinated!)

In reply to Solaris:

Nicely put.

In reply to mountainman147:

Oh the irony!

In reply to redsulike:

Ha ha. I'm sure if you look you can find plenty of discussions on karate forums tha mirror much of the stuff here exactly.
("Competitive" karate in the Olympics, pah! That's not *real* karate. etc...)

On the subject of karate, I sympathise with that point of view somewhat more than I do with climbing. Though I'd have thought the main reason not to add karate is that tae kwon do, which is basically the same thing, is already in.

In reply to UKC News:

Just got the advert for the Olympic bid whilst reading this thread!

In reply to deepsoup:

If that's the case I take back what I said as I assumed climbing had pretty high participation rates. Obviously as a climber I know lots of climbers but even so I had no idea wrestling was popular - maybe it is in other countries. I've known people who play squash but most of the squash courts I've ever known have now closed and given that you can only get two people on a court at any one time I'd be surprised if participation rates are as high as climbing but, again, I'm probably looking at it from a very western perspective

In reply to UKC News: good decision ,climbing as a tv sport is utter bilge,it would become one of the fringe joke sports in the olympics

In reply to UKC News:

I know about, say, 100 climbers pretty well. I can tell you none would be able to tell me who's the current world champion, including myself. Climbing is not a competitive sport, so it's pointless to be in the olympics.

In reply to Ramon Marin: None of my friends could name a significant dry tooling route. Does that make dry tooling not a part of climbing?

To some people climbing is a competitive sport. To me that is enough to justify it's existence and promotion.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

It seems to be competitive enough at climbing competitions...

100 out of how many around the world? You'd probably be able to name the Olympic champion, if there was one.

I do sort of agree with mark s' comment though - it doesn't make good tv. Which is probably why it didn't make the cut.

In reply to mark s: I agree, it's really boring to watch. I'm pleased it didn't get put forward. Climbing is better being generally non competitive for the reasons Tyler outlined above.

In reply to LakesWinter:

unlike golf...

In reply to Tyler: The BMC bolt fund, The 2013 Indoor Bouldering Competition, The BMC Leading Ladder, a quick browse of the BMC Website, the Home Page features a large picture and article on the Olympic bid, Rob Adie... I could go on... and often do.
I am happy that you are a sport climber but would just prefer if you would go and form your own organisation instead of piggy-backing onto a mountaineering organisation and develop your hobby through the subscriptions paid by sport climbers and not through BMC members the majority of which are not interested in sport climbing. You could hear the sharp intake of breath from Manchester over here on the other side of the Pennines when the results of the BMC Membership Survey were published a couple of years ago.
This is an argument about money. Sport climbing, the Olympic bid and the interests that support it are using the BMC and the large govenment grant the organisation has attracted as a vehicle to promote their own niche activity.
In a town near you, a wall owner somewhere, is crossing the Olympics off his 10 year business plan.

In reply to UKC News:

Glad it isn't in. Although I fully agree the top climbers have the same skill level as any other top athletes, it really isn't great as a spectator sport.

In reply to Tyler:
Oh, I don't really know about participation rates.
When I said poll, I was referring to this kind of thing:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/polls/71-which-sport-do-you-think-the-ioc-sho...

In reply to UKC News: Good news! The olympics themselves are not the problem. It is how the image presented to the next generation is changed by the media. Often for the worse. Example is Taekwondo. Use to be about culture, philosophy, respect and fighting. Now it is about scoring points, running around celebrating after each tap (which used to be a deductable point) and back stabbing and complaining about each other on social media.

In reply to mountainman147: Competitions and money generate an 'elite few'. Sport is not democratic. Climbing walls are not free to use. Climbing has a proud history of the many leaving the towns on a weekend to enjoy a bit of outdoor leisure time.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Not really, when you bear in mind the fact that mountainman147 is evidently an inarticulate moron.

jcm

In reply to redsulike:

I once encountered a couple of teenagers doing that outside the youth club I used to work in.

I hit the roof.

In reply to UKC News:

Still is an Olympic sport, they recognise it http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/recognised-sport-federations/federat... Just haven't give out medals since the 20's because its achievements are subjective, we're not that shallow and it encourages people to try and climb the Eiger

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I think in this post you sum up remarkably well what is nauseous in climbing today. Well done, and stick your "role models" up your a***!

In reply to Niall:

Very droll. Liking your work.

jcm

In reply to mountainman147:


Why? Let people do it if they want to, there's no point in dragging them in.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

People going out and climbing in a way that brings them happiness? Or the fact that this is widely regarded as a nice way to live your life?

Personally I find John Redhead walking around with a a giant papier mache cock strapped to his head more nauseous, but then I guess those where the good old days where climbing was for real men and people didn't do it for enjoyment.

In reply to remus:

Agree with you 100%

In reply to Toreador: golf is boring to watch and play!

In reply to redsulike:

How does this aggressively promote sport climbing? It passively promotes safe climbing on existing sport routes but that's it. Activists still have to organise themselves into bolt funds to come and claim the money, they then need to organise and train people to place these bolts. All the BMC does is allocate a small amount of money to help make climbing safer for a large number of its grassroots members.


None of which have anything to do with outdoor sport climbing.


The thing is, every single sport climber I know either started climbing after a long traditional apprenticeship or else is now a pretty accomplished trad climber. The days of them and us are long gone so I suggest if anyone needs to set up their own group it's the diminishing number of militant trad only climbers. Also, I'm not a great believer in thin end of the wedge arguments regarding bolts but I have seen enough transgressions to know that trad climbing is better severed when climbing is considered a single community.


So, apart from £10,000 towards the better bolts campaign what else do the BMC do that is exclusively for sport climbers?


Missed that, what was the conclusion? Were the results skewed by the large numbers of club members who piggy-back BMC membership on the back of their club subscription and that are subsidised by those of us who think the BMC is worth paying full price to join?


FFS sport climbing does not mean competition climbing!


You mean those climbing walls used by sport, trad, alpinists and competition climbers alike and which rely on the income from all groups in order to be viable and for the benefit of all?

In reply to remus:
I agree with:


Competitions and climbing don't go together, except in the commercial media circus, IMO.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce--I totally agree with you.

<double takes>

In reply to Tyler:

>The thing is, every single sport climber I know either started climbing after a long traditional apprenticeship or else is now a pretty accomplished trad climber

C'mon, though, you'd surely accept you know a very skewed sample? I can assure you there are dozens of sports climbers in every London wall who are neither of those two things.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I personally find competitions inspiring due to the widely available footage as well as blogs which I can identify really well with. Basically - trying really hard and seeing what happens!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

People who compete in competitions would presumably disagree. Would you deny them their enjoyment because of your opinion?

In reply to DrGav:


Nothing wrong with the odd comp. But if climbing goes to the Olympics--that's taking the competition side of climbing to a whole different level. And divorcing it even further from where climbing really belongs, which is outside, on a trad crag, ideally on a mountain.

Now you know my prejudices

In reply to UKC News: I think it's quite sad that climbing didn't make it to the Olympics. I actually find it very entertaining to watch as a competition sport and I know other people who do too.

I'm really surprised how much hatred is shown towards competition climbing and sport climbing as a whole... When I started climbing a few years ago I thought climbing was amazing (and still do) as there was something for everyone, from indoor to outdoor, bouldering, trad, sport, winter, mixed, alpine... and thought competitions where a normal part of the fun, but apparently not everyone sees it this way.

Also, maybe you pay to go to your climbing wall, but if like me you don't have much money, you don't have a car, you don't come from a family of climbers and hence have no access to gear (because climbing outdoor doesn't come cheap either), well indoor climbing still offers you a chance to get started!

In reply to UKC News: Happy news

In reply to UKC News:

Doesn't this thread kind of say it all?

Elite (and hopefully soon to be Olympian) squash players are what everyone who plays squash aspire to. It is representative of what everyone at all levels does.

Olympic style climbing clearly isn't.

Squash deserves it, and wrestling shouldn't have ever been removed. Baseball/softball is a joke, and while I'll accept that climbing would be more deserving of Olympic status than others which currently have that (*cough* beach volleyball *cough*), it doesn't bother me one bit that it missed out.

In reply to UKC News: So is climbing so crap we need to be in the Olympics? What exactly does it contribute? Commercial self fulfilling interests aside ...you can still promote grass roots youth climbing, you can still enjoy the vast network of climbing walls, you can still take part in competitions, you can still do everything you did this morning. So what would it have brought?

In reply to clement:

Unfortunately UKC is heavily populated with miserable old gits who think that anything other than onsight trad is a waste of time.

I love the fact that climbing does have something for everyone and I have fully embraced that as have many others.

Its a real shame that it didn't make it in to the Olympics, fingers crossed for next time!

In reply to UKC News: Like lots of others I think this is a good result. Climbing isn't a competitive sport and should never ever become one.

Hopefully now the BMC will become a bit less obsessed with indoor climbing and concentrate on outdoor climbing

In reply to Steve Woollard: I think obsession is a bit of a strong word for it.

I don't know if it has changed in the intervening years, but the 2011 BMC annual report indicates that about 10% (~£70k) of expenditure for specialist programmes (i.e. excluding personnel costs, office costs etc.) was on 'competitions' and 'performance'.

For a bit of perspective, £70k was spent on volunteers. Access and conservation got £210k. £56k went on guidebooks.

Assuming the spending has not changed dramatically in the intervening years I think it is safe to assume the BMC does focus on the outdoors more than the indoors.

In reply to remus: Found the 2012 report: www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=1053&#8206

Spending on competitions and performance has increased slightly to 13%, still a stretch to call it an obsession in my opinion.

In reply to remus: I found the 2012 report: www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=1053&#8206

Spending on competitions and performance has increased slightly to 13%, still a stretch to call it an obsession in my opinion.

In reply to remus:

Presumably, yes, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

...bloody hell Tim, be careful mate...that's twice someone has agreed with you in the last month or so...you'll be losing your rep !

But seriously, Bruce is absolutely right, all this climbing and Olympic bollox has been just that...bollox. As I remember rightly, albeit 40 years ago, I got into mountaineering because it WASN'T a recognised sport !
And before anyone starts shouting "old fart" from the sidelines, I do indoors, bouldering and sport, as well as the trad stuff....
Utter, utter bollox....
ANdy

In reply to clement:


Then how do you pay for a climbing wall? When I started climbing I made my own gear - nuts on slings, had to buy a few crabs, second hand at first, and hitch-hiked to climb. I joined a club and they provided ropes... Apart from climbing itself, hiking and camping to get fit doesn't cost much either.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ahh.. Very passable, this, very passable.

Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, ay Gessiah?

Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?

Aye. In them days, we'd a' been glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.

A cup ' COLD tea.

Without milk or sugar.

OR tea!

In a filthy, cracked cup.

We never used to have a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.

The best WE could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.

But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.

Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness."

'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.

House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!

You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!

Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.

Well when I say "house" it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.

We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!

etc

In it's glory....especially for Bruce..

youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo&

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH:

...you were lucky Mick......
ANdy (a REAL Tyke)

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Everything will be skewed by people's personal experiences, I could equally say the examples you use are skewed by you living in London, I'd be prepared to bet that they're not representive of most of the rest of the country. The point I was really making though is that it is unhelpful to talk about sport climbers as an entirely separate group from those who go trad climbing and as such sport climbing should be included as part of the BMC's remit.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

...and you try and tell the young people of today and they won't believe you....

Well, I think it is a shame. Personally, I don't find that sport climbing much interferes with my activity in the mountains, except that it has attracted a lot of new people to climbing, increasing the BMCs income, but also the access challenges at some crags.

Yet I also enjoy sport climbing, and enter and enjoy the odd competition, and now that climbing (sport climbing especially) is a genuinely worldwide sport, it deserves a shot at an olympic place. Also, I suspect that given an olympic event, the BMC might find itself funded to manage the British team, thus freeing up cash to spend on those mountaineers that reject the legitimacy of competition climbing.

I thought this was a good bid which added something new to the sport, so it is a shame not to see it go further.

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH:


Bugger! You beat me to it.

In reply to UKC News:

I'm glad it didn't get in.

You know I'm puzzled by ordinary punters who are in favour of this sort of thing and who use the arguments of including more people, improving facilities etc, etc etc...

If the sport aspect of climbing ever became properly established how would it benefit anyone other than a few at the top of the tree? Bring more people into the sport? Why anyone in England would want longer queues at their local crag every weekend is beyond me. More money into the sport, who's going to get it? Improved equipment, I doubt it actually and anyway I had as much fun climbing with a hawser laid rope and half a ton of steel krabs in the seventies as I do today with all that technology has brought us.

Nah..if folk want to have competitions then let them form their own organisation, compete indoors and call it something else so that no one is left with the idea that it's got anything to do with the eccentric, anarchic and slightly risky activity that most of us love.

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Sorry to upset you but to say it's money that stops people going to the mountains is nonsense... Mountaineering in the British hills is one of the cheapest hobbies, and then you can go on to scrambling for little more. The main cost in rock-climbing is the rope, but did you own a rope when you first started? I didn't.

You can rant all you like if it helps in some way but I don't quite see what point you are making?

In reply to UKC News:

in japan they did a thing where a host wandered the streets with a board showing all the new olympic contender sports (about 10 of them, squash, rollerblading, wrestling, baseball back in, etc).
random members of the public were asked what theyd like for the next one chosen (place a red dot under the picture of it).

climbing came third after wrestling reappointed and baseball.

means nothing other than to show how any demograph picks what they are familiar with: the japanese are obsessive with baseball and have several medals in wrestling.

not surprising with squash really - seems most climbing walls are made from old squash courts.

(personally id have voted squash: fits the olympic ideal i think, not bad to watch, and good camera angles for the ultrafit girls in short skirts that play it).

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Indeed. Although a bit of competition can also be fun. Some people choose to take competition climbing it seriously and it's nice for them to have that option at an Olympic level (admittedly they already have that option at a world cup level, but I guess there's more prestige with the Olympics and certainly a lot more media attention and funding). Still, I can't help being a little uneasy about climbing being an Olympic sport - it somehow goes against the 'enjoying it for yourself' ethos.

At the end of the day, I suspect it's no big deal for most climbers either way but I imagine that the British climbing team would have got more funding if climbing was an Olympic sport. There would also have been more exposure for para-climbing, which would have been a good thing. There is a guy in my local club who is virtually blind and has been offered a place on the British para-climbing team after doing very well in the national competition. Imagine climbing 7a where you can barely see the holds that are at the end of your reach! That surely deserves all the support it can get.

At a local level, if climbing got into the Olympics there might have been an increase in the number of indoor climbers and a smaller increase in the number of outdoor climbers. That would have been both a good and a bad thing...

In reply to Removed User:

Sat on a belay on Saturday on top of Stanage, back to back with a total stranger, in glorious afternoon sunshine, watching a swarm of paragliders circling across the valley... Olympic glory was absolutely the last thought on my mind.

In reply to Trevers:

And on Sunday evening I was looking at Stanage, Bamford and the whole of the Derwent valley from the top of Cutgate. I had it all to myself. That wouldn't happen if mountain biking was in the Olympics......

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

How much does car fuel cost in your world?

In my world an annual membership to the local climbing wall is £300 and a tank of diesel is about £70. If you live in a city indoor climbing is usually *much* less expensive than outdoor climbing.

The people who are making the serious money in the 'climbing' industry are selling outdoor clothing and gear not running climbing walls. Climbing walls are a marginal small/medium size business.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That's not really what I was trying to say. My point is that the Olympic climbing vision is so far removed from the experiences of most climbers as to be almost completely un-representative of their experiences and motivations. The same couldn't be said about squash, and I imagine most squash players and fans would be hugely disappointed if it's excluded. It always had a far stronger case for being in the Olympics.

In reply to remus:

And what proportion of the BMC's income comes from those who participate in competitions, I wonder?!

jcm

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Depends on the city, I'd suggest. If it's Sheffield or Manchester or Bristol, for example, then I don't know that that's true at all. See any 30s or 50s climber's autobiography.

jcm

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Quite a lot, but it doesn't have to be you who pays... What's wrong with hitching? That's the cheapest, if not sharing with others, all the ways people do when they don't have much cash.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think the main problem with hitching is that people won't pick you up any more. You tried it recently?

jcm

In reply to UKC News:

Olympic climbing is coming whether you like it or not. It didn't make it this time but it will one day for sure.

And I'm sure plenty of you ignorant, selfish and blinkered old farts will be gobsmacked by how brilliant the whole thing is!

great news

In reply to UKC News:

It's a shame the OP story doesn't include a quote from IFSC about how they're going to take things forwards.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
But MTB was in the Olympics (may be as a demo sport) - and was dull to watch.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I wouldn't pick me up these days! I tried from Aosta to Chamonix in 2003, no success at all, but I've also spoken to people who still hitch - it was never easy anyway. The man says he spends £300 per year on a climbing wall, that would finance a few bus fairs, shared petrol and such like to do the real thing...

I'm just not convinced by those that say climbing in British mountains is ruled out by cost, you can spend a lot if you want to but by modern standards of expenditure it's not an expensive hobby if you rough it a bit and don't bother with fancy gear. Cams and Friends (the metal sort) are not absolutely necessary. I should think beer would be the biggest expense these days, and even that can be cut out by a serious enthusiast.

In reply to becauseitsthere:

The voice of reason strikes again! You should join the team promoting the project, with your gift for soft talking and tact we'd have nothing to fear of climbing even getting in the short list

Sadly the Olympics is a monster and we now have a situation where many folk consider sports that are not in - not to be proper sports. This is also reflected in funding by national bodies who see Olympic medals as national priorities in international willywanging contests and see no value in having world champions in other sports.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

by - remus on - 19:13 Wed
In reply to Ramon Marin: None of my friends could name a significant dry tooling route. Does that make dry tooling not a part of climbing?




I can do both does that mean I win an all round medal ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"Club provided the ropes? When I started there were no clubs."

"You were lucky. When I started there were no ropes. Nor slings. I raided my mum's washing line before my first trad route. Used the washing line as rope and an old bra as a sling. We would stick some rocks inside the bra cups to make do as hexes"

"Washing line? Washing line? We used to dreeeeaaam of washing line. When I started we used to hang about changing rooms at pit head and nick as many boot laces as we could find, tie them together with double-fisherman's knots and use that as a rope. Could never do more than a 20 foot pitch, mind you."

"20 foot pitch? You were lucky. We used to attach ourselves together with opposite ends of our belts. Trousers used to fall down to our ankles on crux moves, but at least we were happy."

"Aye, you try telling any of that to the average sports climber of today and they won't believe you."

"Aye."

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Is it? I think that's what's in dispute.

"There are only three sports - motor racing, bullfighting, and mountaineering. Everything else is just a game" (attributed to Ernest Hemingway, another woefully ignorant, selfish and blinkered old fart).

In reply to PPPatrick:

That joke has already been done above in the thread, and it was no more relevant then. It's nothing about the past it's still a simple fact that you can go climbing in the hills somewhere if you live in Britain - the South East being about the hardest - for a quite moderate outlay. It might require a little more effort than going for a fast food climb at a climbing wall but to say financially it's much more expensive than a £300 yearly ticket for a wall is bollocks... and even there you'll still need to buy shoes, and probably harness (I don't know as I've never been to a climbing wall) so these costs still have to be paid.

In reply to Solaris:

It's not only a question of being a sport, which is still debateable, for the Olympic Games (not Sports!) it needs to be a competitive sport in which the competitors compete against each other - here normal climbing doesn't fit in at all, only a rather artificial minor variant does. When this minor variant reaches the numbers of participants that, say, squash does then the debate might be open again, even if most climbers would still consider this to be aberrant.

In reply to UKC News:

Good news.
Hopefully the BMC will heed the overall sentiment of this thread.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Any old/serious kayakers/canoeist here?
The reason I ask is that some years ago, they went through a similar debate - although I think it was somewhat 'after-the-event'. The issue was that although kayaking started off as philospohically similar to climbing ("It's just something you do, it's not competitive, blah, blah..."), once they became an Olympic sport, that aspect came to dominate the thinking of the BCU (their equivalent of our BMC). End result being that the BCU is now all about training, certification, elite competition and pays little notice to the thing which the non-competitive kayakers value like access rights etc.
So, my memory and/or interpretation of event in the kayaking world may be mistaken. Does anyone have any better insights? Otherwise perhaps we should look to learn from other peoples' mistakes rather than risk repeating them. Note - I'm not saying climbing shouldn't be part of the Olympics (I'm not that fussed one way or the other), just that we should perhaps think carefully how if it is, we can prevent the BMC becoming like the BCU.

In reply to Marek:
On the other hand, cycling and mountain biking also has a similar mix, and seems to get on alright - when I potter around the lanes on a sunday I'm out for the exercise and the scenery and generally the fun of it not because I'm dreaming of olympic glory at the velodrome, but I wouldn't tell Chris Hoy that he's somehow missing the point or betraying the spirit of what cycling "ought" to be about.

In reply to MattDTC:

I hope the BMC doesn't heed the overall sentiment of a small vocal group.

I personally think it's a loss for climbing and I hope they try again in 4 years time.

I don't think anyone would argue that "sport climbing" (let's call it competition climbing shall we?) in the way it's been put forward to the Olympics is different from what many of us would describe as rock climbing, but I find the utter disdain shown towards it to be disappointing. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are merely different parts of a whole. Indeed looking at many of the leading climbers through the years you'd see that they've enjoyed success at competitions (a good example might be David Lama - comp climber as a youth and now a leading alpinist). Having been to a few competitions, watching the elite finals has always been a spectacle, rivalling and surpassing some of the Olympics.

The BMC's 2010 survey showed that 37.3% of members were indoor climbers and 61.6% as rock climbers as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd activity. I have no doubt that the percentage of indoor climbers would have increased over the last 3 years given the explosion we've all seen at climbing walls. It would be worth it to remember that the majority of indoor climbers likely aren't members of the BMC. As has already been pointed out the funding by the BMC is a small proportion of total funding, and probably inline with the demographics.

As I've said, I do hope that Competition Climbing continues to work towards being at the Olympics. It's an amazing event, indoor climbing is great as an activity to participate in and I'd love to be able to share what I enjoy with more and more people.
It wasn't ready now, but will be ready in the future.

Here's a few thoughts about the bid from someone with a much better idea than me.

http://blog.lwimages.co.uk/2013/05/29/climbing-2020-access-denied/

In reply to tk421:

Let's not. I often go sport climbing. I have never competition climbed.

>in the way it's been put forward to the Olympics is different from what many of us would describe as rock climbing,

Climbing on indoor plastic is pretty distant from climbing on real rock

In reply to Ramblin dave: But cycling has several different bodies, as far as I know the CTC is "recreational" and "British cycling" is for the sports stuff.

Long time since I canoed but always had the impression that the BCU/SCU was pretty irrelevant to me as a non competitor

In reply to ericinbristol:


Riding a bike in a velodrome is pretty distant from riding a bike on a country lane or in London traffic.

It's a distinct aspect of the sport, just as high altitude mountaineering, bouldering and British hillwalking are all distinct aspects of the sport, but they're complementary rather than antagonistic and I'm happy for the BMC to promote all of them. I don't get the attitude that it would be a bad thing that people who put in an enormous amount of time and effort and talent into the aspect of the sport that they enjoy and are interested in shouldn't get recognition simply because that isn't the same aspect of the sport that I'm currently interested in. It seems very egocentric to think that what you get out of climbing is the only correct thing to get out of it and that anyone who enjoys it in any way other than the one that you deem to be The Real Thing is misguided.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Sorry I meant to imply the "sport climbing" that has been marketed to the Olympics isn't sport climbing in the sense of clipping bolts outdoors, and that a more accurate name for it would be competition climbing.

I think we're looking at personal points of view, where we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd argue that the movements are the same, the route-reading is similar, the equipment is the same (comparing sport climbing to indoor leading), overall the skills are very much transferable between the two.

In reply to tk421:


Is it a small vocal group or is it the majority? Have the BMC canvassed its membership on this? How do you know it's a small vocal group?


Yes, because that's what it is. Sport climbing has a distinct meaning in climbing and before this thread I've never seen them used interchangably. I'm guessing you're new to climbing?


Again you are assuming that because people climb indoors they are pro competition or compete themselves. Indoor climbing is not just competition climbing, besides, its possible to be pro competitons and against the ide of the BMC persuing the 'Olympic Dream', I know becusee that describes me. Possibly the ~4% of respondents who have indoor climbing as their principle activity are comp climbers but I doubt even that, there are lots of people at walls I go to who mainly climb indoors who are not competition climbers.


I doubt that but I don't have any figures, do you?


One last time, indoor climbing does not mean competition climbing, sport climbing does not mean competition climbing.

In reply to Tyler:

>Is it a small vocal group or is it the majority? Have the BMC canvassed its membership on this? How do you know it's a small vocal group?

At the moment this thread has shown the views of a small vocal group. There were those who expressed a hope that the BMC might consider this thread representative (which it may or may not be).

>Yes, because that's what it is. Sport climbing has a distinct meaning in climbing and before this thread I've never seen them used interchangably. I'm guessing you're new to climbing?

As I've already stated, I wanted to clarify exactly what we were discussing since people have been using them interchangeably given how the IFSC have marketed it.

>I doubt that but I don't have any figures, do you?

Yes, as has already been posted, the BMC 2012 finances show approximately £64k out of a total expenditure of £2.443m (3% of total). Sport England grants and other donations amount to £409k. I'd suggest that perhaps £64k of that might've been earmarked to be spent on developing the sport through competitions, both local and elite.

>One last time, indoor climbing does not mean competition climbing, sport climbing does not mean competition climbing.

I have never implied that sport climbing means competition climbing (specifically wanting to make that distinction). I'd say that competition climbing is a subset of indoor climbing, and my suggestion was that increasing visibility of indoor climbing by promoting competition climbing would increase uptake of indoor climbing. Which is something I'm all for.

In reply to Marek:

Funnily enough I just bought a book about kayaking. The limit of my knowledge is what's in there, but according to that you need BCU membership to paddle in all sorts of places.

What you get in return, I've no idea.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I agree - see my post 18.44 yesterday.

Except, was this "debate" ever really "open"? Or was it just hoped that a badly constructed opinion poll, a few meetings with some politicians and an oh, so innocent agreement in principle from the BMC to the Olympic ideals would carry the ignorant, blinkered and flatulent on a wave of euphoria to the Elysian fields of Olympian glory? (Or am I mixing my classical metaphors? Tim Chappell? Forgive my ignorance!)

In reply to tk421:

You think that route reading indoors on plastic is similar to route reading outdoors on real rock? Ridiculous. Have you climbed outdoors? How much?

In reply to ericinbristol:

Do they have plastic flowers and moss on indoor walls? What about turds at belays? Rain showers from time to time?

In reply to becauseitsthere: You are Rob Adie and I claim my £10.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Mostly irrelevant ramblings. I am pleased that climbing is not in the Olympics and expressed the view that climbing on real rock is pretty distant from climbing indoors. You then bumble off into attributing all sorts of claims to me I did not make.

In reply to tk421: Ok first things first.
Yours is the voice of a small vocal group. The small vocal group that has worked its way into the organisation of the BMC and is seeking to change the organisation (borrowing a phrase) whether 'you' want it or not.
Having followed your link, the reason climbing did not make it into the Olympics is because we didn't have a slick sexy video clip featuring young beautiful people (male and female - that box is ticked) representing the developing world as world champions (another box ticked). The video is bollox. It misrepresents on so many levels, the least of which is the leisure time activities of most of the rest of the world 'on all 5 continents.'
If we are to pursue this Olympic nonsense we will have to invest millions into the bid. Perhaps attract investment from a wealthy (dodgy?) foreign businessman wishing to make himself appear respectable and avoid a bit of tax, (see: football, see: boxing) We might have to pay huge bribes to the members of the IOC to secure their vote. I'm not saying anything here...but Baseball???
And oh how we love to play with figures. How many members listed indoor climbing as their 1st activity? How many outdoor climbers who sometimes use the wall were included in the figure of 37.3%?
Now its a free world and if you want to chase that particular dream then go ahead. But stop using other people's money who want nothing to do with your pantomime. The BMC is an organisation to represent people who climb mountains, the clue is in the name, and it has been hijacked.

In reply to ericinbristol:

There are similarities. Bouldering being the closest to indoors as half the time it's clear. If climbing on rock and indoors are so different, why do you climb indoors? (I'm actually interested).

I'd easily lose a shouting match if it comes down to "my experience trumps yours".

I've merely been trying to clarify parts of the discussion and voice some constructive defence of the bid in the hope that people can understand other points of view.

In reply to tk421:

>If climbing on rock and indoors are so different, why do you climb indoors? (I'm actually interested).

Blimey, you really don't know anything, do you?

I'm sure ericinbristol can answer for himself, but I'll hazard a guess at 'for training' and 'because after work on a weekday it's dark by the time I've driven to the crag'. Although actually that last one is not so true in Bristol.

jcm

In reply to Ramblin dave:

But to me, one of the key feature of the BMC is the work it does to protect and enhance our access right. Not an issue for road cycling, but do you see any MTB national organisation working actively on access rights?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As you said jcm, for training when I finish work too late so that it is too dark to climb outdoors (so I barely touch plastic April - end Sept)

In reply to Doug:

So how do we ensure (if it ever becomes and issue) that the BMC does not become the equivalent of BC or the BCU? Will it still have the motivation do put effort into protecting access rights (for instance) for the non-competitive majority? Or will it follow the money?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

They're the exact same reasons I climb indoors (especially working in the South East). Yet if indoor climbing and outdoor climbing are so far apart, then why would you climb indoors?

I'm sure we agree on 99% of issues, I'm just hoping that at some point in the future more people can enjoy something that I enjoy.

In reply to tk421:

because they are, I don't

In reply to ericinbristol:

Oh, okay, my mistake. I must have missed the part where people people like Bruce and redsulike were saying that they appreciate competition climbing as an exciting and valuable part of the climbing scene, but they just don't think it should be in the Olympics. And the stuff about what climbing is and is not "about" was probably just a load of typos.

In reply to tk421:

It's not complicated: indoor climbing is a pale, inadequate shadow of the real thing but sometimes it is better than nothing.

Try an analogy: indoor climbing is to climbing on real rock what MacDonalds is to a top-class meal with the finest fresh, healthy ingredients cooked beautifully. But to you it's all just food. Having indoor climbing in the Olympics as the highest profile version of climbing is like having MacDonalds represent the pinnacle of gastronomic achievement. Feel free to eat that crap but don't insult real food by suggesting they are essentially the same.

In reply to Marek:

Despite what people like Redsulike and others may claim, the BMC devotes far more time to access issues than it does to comps.

However it aims to support all forms of climbing, winter and summer, indoor and out, trad and sport, from bouldering to mountain climbing, from hill-walking to major expeditions, from beginners on Stanage to the elite in comps. Is that such a bad thing ?

The gloating tone from many on this thread is somewhat unpleasant, but even more so is the notion that the BMC should only act for the "right" sort of climbers

In reply to Ramblin dave:

You really are captain irrelevant aren't you. I expressed my own views and you attribute those of other people to me. How odd.

In reply to Marek:

Well, the obvious answer would be to entirely separate off the section of the BMC that's responsible for running a national squad and developing competition climbing from the part that's concerned with access, safety and similar issues. Keep the BMC as something more like the CTC and set up a new thing which is comparable to the BCU and give it responsibility for raising its own funds and building its own membership. This doesn't seem like rocket science...

In reply to ericinbristol:
I wasn't attributing it to you, I was replying to the thread in general. Are you generally in favour of competition climbing, then?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I object to you attributing views to me that aren't mine. You reply directly to that with a bunch of views that aren't mine. Then you say you weren't attributing them to me. That's cleared that up.

I couldn't care less about competition climbing. I do not want climbing to be in the Olympics. Not the same thing.

In reply to ericinbristol:
I mentioned two other posters in my second reply. I'd have thought that that would make it clear that I wasn't attributing those views specifically to you. Apologies if it didn't.

In reply to UKC News: I personaly don't care, but its bad news for the countries top sports climbers as with Olympic representation would have come much better funding..

In reply to ericinbristol:
Great, that's your point of view. I think that indoors would be closer to Pizza Express and outdoors would be going to Italy. I can get something that I find enjoyable but I can't travel every day to get the real deal.

I understand your view of not wanting the climbing to be represented by indoor climbing at the Olympics. The 1922 expedition would be a much better representation. As a sport (like running/cycling/gymnastics) climbing needs structure which is what competition climbing is. I find it exciting to watch as a test of climbing skill and strength.

My view's different to yours and I hope the BMC takes into account all views when it decides how it will act in the future.

In reply to UKC News: massive shame, can only hope they'll retry in 4 years. The Olympics would have suited competition climbing perfectly.

In reply to tk421:

I guess because indoor climbing is a good way to fill in the gaps between crag days. You can practise and improve technique and get a bit of a work out. But it's not the real deal, with the atmosphere and pyschology and feelings of personal achievement, or the intricacies of weather, placing gear, checking for safe holds etc. A bit (emphasis on 'bit') like comparing road cycling to going on an exercise bike.

I wouldn't say this thread is representative of the wider climbing community, but given that the vast majority of views on here are somewhere between apathy and vehement opposition, you can't really claim that those not for the bid are a small but vocal minority.

In reply to tk421:

All that is fair enough. The thing is, in the end a decision has to be made that favours one side over the other i.e. climbing in the Olympics or not. I do not want it in the Olympics, you do. In the end one view wins, another loses.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Liking what you did there. Nice work

In reply to UKC News: Thats a shame. It would have been good to watch a facet of climbing elevated to the olympics.

In reply to Trevers:

Wouldn't cycling in a velodrome be a better comparison?

In reply to Trevers:
Agree with you completely on the indoor v outdoor.

My opposition is to the views that "competition climbing isn't climbing" - it's a subset of indoor climbing, which is a subset climbing (of which rock climbing is a subset).

And that the views of a small, vocal minority on UKC aren't necessarily representative of the views of all climbers. They may well be, but I hope the BMC looks at everything.

In reply to UKC News:

Eeeee when I were a lad. Cycling from Haslingden to Brownstones regularly and 6 weeks in The Verdon on 150 quid.

E

In reply to ericinbristol: What a load of bollox. That's like saying I dont mind watching the Tour de France, but can't be bothered with that Velodrome shite, because it's just not real cycling.

Indoor, or competetion climbing is a just a different part of the big world of climbing, and a lot more exciting to watch than some boring trad climb DVD that has to be made more exciting with funny camera angles and atmospheric music.

In reply to Andrew Smith:

I said that I do not want indoor climbing in the Olympics. I did not say that indoor or competition climbing are not part of climbing.

In reply to tk421:


That's the second time you've said this and I'm curious to know what it is you enjoy that you think we'll only be able to share if climbing makes the Olympics? No disrespect to anyone on this thread but we're all too shit and too old to ever make a UK Olympic team.

In reply to UKC News: I'm not sure that I care that much but I took up climbing specifically because it was not an overtly competitive activity. The fact that it has become one saddens me but it's not that big a deal as long as it doesn't interfere with the game that I play which seems unlikely.

In reply to Tyler:
I actually enjoy climbing indoors, the physical activity, finding a method and topping out a bloc/route I've worked on.

I don't think I'll only be able to share that with others if climbing makes the Olympics, but I think the Olympics will bring more people into it.

Cycling probably being the best example.

In reply to tk421: I don't want to encourage more people into climbing. Selfish I know but I really don't want to climb with hordes of people hanging around.

In reply to tk421:

Climbing seems pretty popular now, indoor walls are pretty busy and climbing is pretty accessible. So how many more people would you like to come in to climbing before you will consider mission accomplished? What if some of those people started climbing and gave up/never tried other sports as a result? Would that be good out come?

In reply to Tyler:
There's clearly more opportunity and appetite for indoor climbing to become a little more "mainstream", new walls are still opening. I'm not saying I want everyone to climb, just that there are some that don't who probably would if the profile were raised and who would enjoy it.

I don't see the "what if people climbed instead of other sports" question as an issue. People will do what they enjoy and it's great if they decide they want to climb.

In reply to tk421:


Hallelujah! So why not just let them? You're never going it give everyone the opportunity (although the opportunities are there for most in this country) so why try? Doubling the number of people who climb would be hugely detrimental to climbing (over crowding of crags) but would still leave 99.9% of the population completely oblivious to its charms? What have you achieved? Those who really want to climb will find a way, I did without outside influence, and it's many, many times easier to do it now.

In reply to Tyler:

Sorry I should caveat that by people will continue to do what the enjoy the most. I hadn't really had a look at climbing before I went with a club to Snowdonia. I hadn't really cycled as a sport until after the Olympics. The opportunities are there if people want to try, but sometimes they don't know about them.

In reply to tk421:

I'm going to have to let you have the last word on this because if you think it's a good idea to attract a load of people into climbing who lack the initiative to go to a climbing wall or pick up a book about climbing unless its in the Olympics then I have no answer. I suppose the only saving grace is that most of them will only stick around until the next Wimbeldon or Open Championship before disappearing to Decathlon to buy a tennis racket or set of golf clubs.

In reply to Chris the Tall: You have misunderstood or misrepresented what I said. I did not say the BMC devotes more on competition climbing than access issues, but access issues are what the BMC 'SHOULD' be doing, representing the interests of its membership. Competition climbing does not represent the interests of its membership, it represents the interests of a small minority of its membership and receives disproportionate funding and coverage.
The BMC is desperate to enlist indoor climbers to raise that percentage of its membership in order to justify its actions in support of the Olympics and Competition climbing which are not supported by its membership.
What you have detected as gloating is in fact a huge sigh of relief that the headlong rush to support for competitions and the Olympics has been dealt a blow.
Those involved with the BMC ought to listen to what is being said and represent that view, instead of disregarding it as a minority view on UKC, because at all other times UKC represents a broad church of climbing...except when the majority view differs to your own. When faced with the plain truth you choose to close your ears to any criticism and resort to calling names...old fart!
BTW, what are the 'right' sort of climbers? I don't recognise the term. Are you the 'right' sort of climber?

In reply to redsulike:
You have said that you would like to see the BMC sever links with the IFSC and abandon any involvement with competions. I believe you are also unhappy with bolt funds and you have expressed your disdain for sport climbers and indoor climbers.

If the BMC were to adopt that approach then, IMHO, it might be representing the views of the UKC forum, but not the views of BMC activits or the broad chuch of british mountaineering.

In reply to tk421:


Why?

In reply to UKC News: WHERE ARE ALL THESE CLIMBERS?

out of the 10's - 100's of thousands (possibly a few million registered climbing wall members across the country) of indoor climbers how many actually climb outside? Very very few is the answer.

Climbing in the Olympics would have mainly impacted on indoor climbing meaning more/ better/ cheaper climbing for everyone.

I really don't understand this notion that more climbers is a bad thing, nearly every crag I go to is deserted.

In reply to kfv:

You're having a laugh - your logbook says Stanage, Burbage, Birchen, Bamford, Froggatt....

In reply to UKC News:

Oh what a shame!

Climbing would surely have benefited from all that extra money sloshing around.

Not to mention the valuable contribution to the ethos of our sport that we could have expected from bureaucrats, rule makers and corporate sponsors.

Pass the onion, I may weep.

In reply to Andrew Smith:


But the point of climbing is doing it, not watching it on a TV.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is that if climbing was chosen to be turned into an Olympic Sport this would put another sport out. What right have those who absolutely want climbing in there, even when they know it is to some extent basing the numbers who participate world wide on those who climb rather than those who participate in competition climbing, and deprive a sport that is a genuine competitive sport and genuine world wide participation levels, from a place in the games? Isn't it rather selfish?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Smart debating point!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

To be fair there is some utter s***e in the Olympics. Golf and beach volleyball to name a couple. Football shouldn't be in there either. Of course I do understand that not all sports are chosen for their sporting content or because they are in keeping with Olympic ideals...

In reply to PPPatrick:
Passable, very passable!

In reply to mountainman147:
>

Is the Olympics not elitist though? Build up the hopes of many by dangling the carrot of competing in the Olympics only to dash most of them because only a very select few can go forward to compete.

In reply to UKC News:

I'm failing to see how the inclusion of climbing in the Olympics is going to cheapen my bumbly outdoor trad climbing. I enjoy kicking a football around in the park with my son, or riding my bicycle. Premiership football, the Tour de France and Olympic cycling are so far removed from my experiences of football or cycling as to make them completely irrelevant. I just don't understand the vehement opposition to indoor competition climbing in the Olympics when it makes no difference whatsoever whether any of us manage to haul our fat arses up Left Unconquerable or not.

In reply to muppetfilter: Really, do you or Mr Lopez know the people who compete internationally. No thought not

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

there, fixed that for you because don't forget that there are lots of BMC members who don't compete who are happy to support comps.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

What difference would that make?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You might know this.

Up until quite late in the process, 'Lead Climbing' was the only discipline that was put forward to the Olympic Committee. However, they seemed to change it to include 'Bouldering' and 'Speed Climbing' at the last moment.
What was the reasoning behind this, last minute desperation at the realisation that climbing was unlikely to be included?

I actually would have supported 'Lead Climbing', but not 'Bouldering' and especially not 'Speed Climbing'.

In reply to Trevers: The problem as I see it is that there is only one type of squash, whereas there are myriad forms of climbing...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So why are you sitting here lambasting about it on a PC?


Genuine competitive sport?? Competition climbing is exactly what it says it is. Competitive. Try watching a World Cup Bouldering Comp. Last weekends comp from Toronto is highly recommended. On Sunday night I sat from 10pm, feet up after a hard day on the crag and sipping a bottle of wine truly engrossed and astounded at the level of competition. It sure beat the usual tripe on TV.

In reply to MJ: A recommendation by the IOC

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Talking whether climbing should be in the Olympics to one side for a moment, does anyone really believe that squash or baseball/softball really have a chance. Surely wrestling is a shoe, they have been rapped on the knuckles for their problems (mainly anti-doping failures) and will be back in for 2020

In reply to Graeme Alderson: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/wladimir-putin-rettet-das-olympische-ring...

Google translation

Russian President Vladimir Putin: The Saviour of the Ringer

From St. Petersburg, explains Jens Weinreich

The Olympic rings does not have a chance of survival - especially thanks to him, Vladimir Putin. The Russian president is now one of the most powerful men in world sport. His influence is greater than that of IOC boss Jacques Rogge, who seems doomed to fail again with his reforms.

Several hundred security forces cordoned off the exhibition halls in St. Petersburg, as the star and secret rulers of the Olympic Movement invaded. Their caution was not about the Belgian Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Rye was once more only the companion of the man who increasingly dominate the world sports, major events like the Olympic Games, the football World Cup, Formula 1 racing, and numerous world championships acquired: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Empire and champion judoka.

DISPLAY
Now Putin has also saved the Olympic rings. At least for now.

The IOC Executive Board had initially painted rings in February from the program for the Summer Games 2020. The World Association Fila and his then-President Raphael Martinetti had not done their homework, were poorly organized and held nothing of Olympic network. The current study of the IOC Programme Commission, which will have all the sports in the summer games in 2012 by 39 points and analyzed on the basis decided by the Executive Committee, the IOC maintains, however, still secret.

Putin coordinated rescue efforts

At the annual summit of the 107 sports world associations, the sports business and the IOC Executive Committee in St. Petersburg, the wrestler to face seven other sports for a place on the shortlist for the IOC meeting in September in Buenos Aires were now present, to fight. And the actions of the wrestlers were successful: Eight of fourteen IOC Executive Learning - rye not voted - put rings in the first ballot to the list. In addition, squash, softball and baseball Olympic hopes for 2020 may make to September. Karate, rock climbing, wakeboarding, wushu and roller sports flew out and have to try again in four years.

That rings gets another chance to a remarkable rescue operation is due to. More than four million U.S. dollars invested Fila and private sponsors. In the dressing revolution, however, Putin was the most important person. He met, as before, on other occasions in other associations, in his residence city of Sochi with the new Fila bosses and some coordinated action. About the Russian Federation Mamiaschwili leader Mikhail Putin conducts the new Serbian Fila president Nenad Lalovic, as insiders call the straw man.

To determine the Olympic program in the Summer Games just and modern, is an almost impossible task. The debate is as old as the game itself already to Coubertin's times was fought bitterly. Currently, there are 25 so-called core sports. These come from 2016 and the Gulf Rugby 7s. The IOC Assembly can complement every four years and could in fall sports or squash rings or softball choose (for women) and baseball (for men). Or leave it at 27 sports.

Organizations are joining together to survive

The mechanism does not even understand all the IOC members. Transparency and public debate would do well, but both can be under the IOC Jacques Rogge miss on. Through the detour of the Youth Olympic Games, his favorite controversial project wants to bring the rye associations disciplines and also to experiment with rule changes. So far, this has hardly borne fruit.

DISPLAY
Attempts at reform has actually done since he took office in 2001 Rogge. He repeatedly but failed on the collective resistance of the establishment. Because the organizations have quickly realized that they only have to stick together to further benefit from the Olympic marketing program and survive.

So the world organizations are now merged in baseball and softball even the new World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC). You have invested a lot of money into lobbyists and PR agents, but must now fear, but to be victims of political power. For what Putin & Co. currently not fool with the rings, it has not seen before.

After all, who believes the petitions and protests, many deserving wrestlers who want to return their medals, or whipped by the Fila rule changes have led the IOC Executive alone to rethink the mechanisms in the billion dollar company IOC considered too naive. Vladimir Putin could tell a lot about certain.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'd like to think softball doesn't, being a perfectly nice game for mixed social teams, but hardly an Olympic sport. And squash comes into the tennis category - doesn't need the Olympics. Wrestling clearly should get it for all sorts of reasons. In general though we need to take some sports out of the Olympics rather than put more in - golf, football, rugby sevens and synchronised swimming being the obvious places to start.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Agreed

And squash comes into the tennis category

Quite the opposite - squash is struggling and would benefit a lot from greater exposure.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The wonders of Google In German ringen = wrestling. Google is thinking it's referring to the Olympic rings and making a bit of a mess of the translation.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You know, i'm trying, i'm really trying, but i still can't see how that's any more relevant to climbing than it is to the price of fish.

Oh, and before you ask and then try to answer the question for me, grilled with lemon and the skin still on.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Well, you seem to have decided that they aren't experiencing personal achievements or having fun, which is somewhat presumptuous if you don't know any of them...

In reply to LakesWinter:

As an ex golfer, golf , is boring to watch and totally frustrating to play.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

All right, you'll have to excuse me, probably all the partying when i was young catching up, but can you please point out to where i said that? I seem to get increasing memory loss lately...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

"Or maybe they could be told that climbing is not about medals or proving you are better than other people, but about personal achievements and having fun?"

Needing to be told that it's about personal achievements and having fun would sort of seem to imply that they aren't already doing that...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Uuuf... I'm glad to know is not my abused braincells ready to leg it. Much partying when young, did you?

In reply to becauseitsthere:


Competition climbing may be competitive, in fact it must be otherwise those who go in for it would change it's name, but climbing itself is not. So if we just look at the numbers involved in this somewhat esoteric activity in the world and compare these with other sports looking for a place in the Olympic Games then I suspect we'd find figures that confirm that it is a minority activity and so is not really a suitable contender.

Obviously if, heaven forbid, "Competition Climbing" ever does become massively popular, booting Mick McManus and so out of the Saturday afternoon TV slot, then the situation might change. Until then I would advise you to have a little more modesty and a bit more respect for people who participate in genuinely popular competitive sports.

I felt the need to respond to this topic because of the massive number of negative comments, just to show that some people do support the ifsc and the Olympic bid. Whilst I enjoy outdoor trad climbing, I also enjoy sport/ competition /indoor climbing, as was hopeful for the Olympic bid. I believe that climbing fits perfectly with the Olympic ideals (whatever comments you may have on the current Olympic ideals...).

I think it is a shame that climbing didn't get In, and hope that they try again i4 years time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You mean like dressage and eventing and sailing and pistol shooting and esoteric variants of cycling...

If you looked at my daughter's primary school class and what sports they'd participated in you'd see that pretty much all of them had been indoor climbing several times. It's a standard birthday party activity and the school even has a club. The vast majority of Olympic sports have far less participation in an average class of kids than indoor climbing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

By your reasoning skipping should be an Olympic event.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If you can't see that Sean McColl, Adam Ondra, Anna Stoehr et al are competitive athletes of Olympic calibre then you're either being intentionally obtuse or you've totally lost the plot.

In reply to UKC News:

This thread has now been running for a fair while, has had over 5000 views and has received 200 posts. I think UKC is familiar to most active climbers and perhaps its fair to assume that the range of opinions expressed on its forums is reasonably reflective of what climbers think.

It's therefore interesting to note that a decisive majority of posters have made it clear that they were not in favour of climbing becoming an Olympic sport.

During the BMC's 'consultation' of its membership on this issue, those who supported Olympic climbing consistently opposed those who suggested that a full survey of all members was necessary.

I think we can now see why.

Many paid officials of the BMC and a good proportion of its elected representatives made it clear that, on a personal level, they wanted the BMC to promote climbing as an Olympic sport. That's fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However, most of them then went on to push a policy of support for Olympic climbing through the narrow confines of local area committees, knowing fine well that this was contrary to the wishes of the majority of members.

Shame on them.

In reply to colin struthers: Change the record Colin, when it was discussed at the Peak area there was no suggestion of taking it to the membership. BMC democracy (such as it is and I grant you there is much that could be improved) was served perfectly well during the process and you know this to be fact.

Your assertion that the majority opposed going after the Games is based purely on you and your immediate circle, it has no basis in fact. You might of course be correct in your assertion but you are guessing wildly, you might of copurse also be wrong. My gut feeling is that there are significant minorities that strongly support comps and that are against comps but the majority aren't bothered either way.

So for the record I supported the BMC in this initiative. And yes you are going to point out that I am a wall owner and I will then repsond by saying that you have no idea of my motivations so don't repeat your insinuations

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well that clarifies things a little

We've had other wall owners, or managers, on ukc threads... It's always better if they declare their interest at the beginning. The last one I had a "debate" with made a brilliant anti-commercial effort for his company!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


*If* that gut feeling is correct - and we have no way of knowing - it makes the BMC's approach all the odder, doesn't it? Why pursue policies about which most of the membership 'aren't bothered'?


Thanks, that's a fair and useful declaration.

I am not making any insinuations, but I think that we need complete transparency about such interests - and potential conflicts of interest - from everybody who has influence in these matters at the BMC.

Re BMC democracy: holding the AGM in a venue that seats more than a tiny number of people might be a useful start. Or at least worth a try. How many can attend the AGM currently?

In reply to colin struthers:

Not my impression at all. UKC seems dominated by a particular stratum of climbers who are very involved/motivated and the climate is openly hostile to some facets of the hobby (sportclimbing, drytooling) and it stands to reason that those identifying with these aspects will be underrepresented here.


Oh come on. The point of having a representative body is to represent, that entails some guesswork/assumptions about the wishes of those represented, and if the representatives get it wrong often enough, they'll be voted out.
The call for a full survey in this context is nothing more than a bureaucratic move, designed to block the other side by forcing a long, ardous and costly process on them. Disguised by an appeal to higher ideals.
If there was substantial opposition, it could have made itself heard in lots of area meetings and through local representatives.

As has been suggested already, the course of events suggests that a majority of the membership was perfectly happy to let their representatives do as they thought best.

In reply to markus691:


That's hardly what "representative" normally means! "Guessing" or "assuming" doesn't sound like a particularly good way of going about things! Not only that but is the BMC really representative of climbers? It may be, assuming they don't really just rely on guessing and assuming, of their membership but what percentage is that of climbers?

Reading these threads it's hard not to have the impression that the BMC is more representative of a clique running it and commercial interests that turn around it.

In reply to UKC News:

Hurrah!

In reply to colin struthers:
Just suppose that In 2009, the BMC had elected a anti-comp president, 90% of those at the area meetings were opposed to the Olympics and no-one on the national council were prepared to vote in favour.

Would you have been happy if the Executive had insisted on holding an unprecedented referendum to see if they could change the decision ?

In reply to markus691:

And you think that people who go to the local area meetings will be fully representative? I can see that these meetings make sense for sorting out local issues, but not for national ones.

It would be trivial for someone technically competent to set up a secure online poll (not to mention free), so I don't see what the argument is for not doing this.

In reply to colin struthers:

Just worth saying that whilst everyone knows about UKC, it's not necessarily representative of all climbers, all the time.

We often see a different split of opinions coming in about various topics on Facebook and Twitter than UKC.

For example, the BMC Facebook page post on the Olympic bid was viewed 22,000 times, shared 86 times and had 90 responses. There was a higher percentage of pro-Olympic posts on the Facebook thread, and a high number of pro-Olympic posts on Twitter.

Of course it might just be the same people expressing themselves in different ways and there's probably some geeky research to do about validity of opinions on various social channels.

Anyway, article by Ed Douglas sums things up well:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ifsc-looks-to-the-future-after-olympic-bid-fails

In reply to Mike Lewis:

Online polls would lead to ill-conceived, knee-jerk policies. The BMC has a very good democratic model whereby you elect people locally to represent you nationally. I doubt if you could find any similar body, or any pressure group, which does things differantly. Yes it gives more power to the local activist over the armchair whinger - I don't have a problem with that.

However there is still the option of proposing a motion at the AGM.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

Presumably, the fairly recent survey is the most accurate representation we currently have of what are the priorities of the overall membership.

What does that tell us in this respect? (I can't find it online.) What priority should be given to competitions etc.?

In reply to Mike Lewis:

It's not representative. For starters, it favours the onliners, who are predominantly young, white, well-off ...
If you want to get a result that is widely accepted on all sides, you need to do it properly, with snail mail to the entire menbership, and sufficient polling time.

Plus, it's pointless IMO. I've done my share of activism for direct democracy, against Munich's olympic bid for 2018 and various other causes, and invariably the final results, when you actually take a vote, are something like 60-40. Which is decisive in a formal sense, but subject to the way the sides are able to present their arguments (in the media) and a host of other factors and so it's rarely convincing for the respective activists.
Put another way: If there was a 80-20 split against the Olympic bid, BMC representatives up and down the country would hear about it loudly and clearly.
In general, it's safer to assume you are out of touch with the majority than any representative. Because unlike you, they are the designated addressee for pro and con voices and they spend a lot more time actively getting in touch with various interest groups than you do.
Which of course shouldn't stop anyone from fighting for what they believe in. It's just that "the others" are rarely a stupid or ill-informed (or evil) as our passionate beliefs would suggest.

In reply to Mike Lewis:

No, if anything you'd expect them to be biased in favour of people with an axe to grind (eg people who are unhappy with the BMC's current support for the Olympic bid) over people who are quite happy with the status quo and people who don't care.

If there's a silent majority who are horrified by the idea of competition climbing in the olympics and can't stand the idea of the BMC supporting it, wouldn't you expect more than a handful of them to actually show up at an area meeting and voice their objections rather than just sitting at home frothing to themselves?

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:


The proportion of Facebook comments may be more pro-Olympic involvement than on UKC but my reading was that anti-Olympic comments were still the considerable majority.

I'm sure you are also aware of the 8a.nu poll. If ever a population sample was likely to have a pro-Olympic bias it would be that website's. The vote was clearly anti-Olympic.

I enjoy watching climbing competitions despite being an old fart and far too rubbish to ever compete myself. I don't like the Olympics as it is corrupt and jingoistic. I’m happy the bid did not succeed.

As a BMC member, I am happy that a small proportion of my membership supports competition climbing. I thought the BMC's consultation about the Olympic bid was shabby and undemocratic. I think the bid has been driven by a few individuals, from within and without the organisation, who will benefit from Olympic involvement. I'm guessing a majority of the membership does not support the Olympic bid. I can't know for sure of course since no proper consultation has taken place.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I doubt that people feel that strongly. I'd imagine most people will either tut quietly or post on forums and won't take it any further.

The time when people will vote (and they'll vote with their feet) is when its obvious that significant funds are being diverted away from supporting the climbing the majority of climbers pursue towards a vanity project.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It already is.
Though you need to be sat on a horse.

In reply to markus691:


Or to put it yet another way, by what right does the minority of climbers who belong to the BMC decide for all climbers? People posting here who belong to the BMC seem to say that only a minority participate in meetings and as only a minority actually belong to the BMC that makes a minority of a minority, ie. not many, and certainly no mandate.

The only times I have ever joined an alpine club it was for the insurance and reduction in huts, isn't this much the same with BMC membership? And how many members are there anyway, of which how many come to meetings in any one year?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Notwithstanding that you don't have to be a BMC member to turn up to a BMC area meeting, what are they deciding for all climbers? They aren't deciding whether Competition Climbing will get to be in the Olympics, they're deciding whether the BMC will support the bid to get it into the Olympics. Since the value of the BMC's support largely comes down to its membership, it seems to make sense for the membership to be the ones to say what it does and does not support.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

That's the point I was trying (badly) to make, the BMC doesn't speak for climbers as a whole it just speaks for it's members. If we all agree on that then there's been a bit of progress.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not so...The BMC is the Representative Body for hill walkers, mountaineers and climbers. So it speaks for and promotes the interests of everyone who engages in any climbing activity. You don't have to be a member. So if you walk the moors, dry tool, bag peaks, hook frozen turf, visit a wall for your weekly exercise, get vomited on on remote sea cliffs or compete in the Olympics; the BMC represents you.

How to manage all this is another question

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

I wouldn't have expected anything else! A thread on here is much less likely to lead to a certain type of reply.

The raison d'etre of Facebook, Twitter etc is folk, organisations etc vainly bigging themselves up. A post on Facebook from a pro-Olympic body is almost certainly going to receive pro-Olympic replies.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC: I'd expect that too.. I can't see why climbers are against it.. I'd expect a huge amount of ambivalence.. or pro.. which is why I think it would go through on a vote.. as most won't give enough of a shit to vote... so wouldn't it against it per se..

It's a pity, I'm ambivalent but do feel for the younger sports climbers as it could have really affected their futures in terms of sponsorship.

Agree with most that golf, football and tennis should not be in. Think Squash should be, but I also think you can trim down swimming and riding events..

I'd like to see ultra or mountain running. They are soon to be commonwealth events by all accounts.. I can't see why race walking is in over 100k ultra running events.. how can 50km race walking be in over 50km running.. surely its strongest.. fittest.. fastest.. but the 50k run is too close to a marathon so add the 100k..

In reply to Removed User:

Some of the members of the BMC may think this but it's not the case, it doesn't represent me or anyone else who doesn't want it to... How could it?

In reply to UKC News: The BMC is NOT truly representative of all climbers, UKC even less so, but the BMC is at least acknowledged as an "official" body. As a member of the BMC however I am against them promoting this. The name is in the title and Mountaineering is the essence of what I believe it should represent. Speed climbing and competitions are a million miles away from that but I do have some sympathy with them as they are trying to accommodate all tastes. I do not have really strong views about it but if asked I would vote against.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The answer is at the front of their annual report "The BMC is recognised by government as a National Governing Body of sport and is grant supported by Sport England."

That means it's got a responsibility to everyone that takes part in the sport, not just it's members.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

This doesn't mean what you think it does... By what means does the BMC exercise it's "authority"? That the government sees it as a valid intermediary concerning climbing, at least the "sport" aspect of it whatever that might be, concerns the government, it doesn't confer any power to speak on behalf of people who have nothing to do with it though.

In reply to GridNorth: Well its as close as can be,.. and no the BMC is for all hill going people.. from runners to climbers to mountaineers to hill walkers.. anyone out in the hills/mountains of Britain..

Its mountaineering in the very broadest sense.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: hes spot on.. the BMC is sports climbing official spokesperson to the government.. they speak for those interested.. the hill walkers.. hill runners.. need not be concerned.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

In the NW Area, of which I was the Chair of at the time, two separate meetings called for a full member vote on the issue. The Area did not initially vote for or against the BMC supporting the Olympic bid because it took the principled stand that this was a matter of such importance to the future direction of the organisation that all members should be consulted directly.

The call for a full consultation was sidelined by the BMC National Council who instead insisted that all areas should hold a vote either for or against at their next area meeting. At the next NW area meeting a large number of people who had never attended an area meeting previously (and who have not done so since) turned up. The presence of this group swung the vote in favour of the Olympic bid. Without this intervention the area might well have maintained its position that this was a matter for the whole membersip to decide.

The technical term for this sort of manipulation of small group meetings to serve the interests of a particular faction is generally known as 'packing the meeting'.

And you think BMC democracy was 'served perfectly well' by this process.

Graham, please do three things.

Stop telling me to change the record because you don't like someone pointing out just how shabby this whole affair was.

Rather than tell me that your opinion is something that I know 'to be fact' try debating the issues instead - that way you won't look quite so devoid of a reasoned argument

Buy a primer on basic democratic theory - you don't seem to understand the concept.

In reply to colin struthers: I don't know who turned up.. but as above the BMC is 'perceived to be Mountaineers'.. wooly jumper brigade.. not sport climbers so would they normally turn up anyway?

I've been to a few North Wales meetings and they were generally trad climbers/mountaineers and for me not representative of the BMC.. i.e. hill walkers, runners, sports climbers as well as the more traditional base.

But why shouldn't those interested turn up when they deem it necessary? We all benefit from their membership? They join to have a say. When they think fit. Then they did.

In reply to IainRUK: You seem to be headed down the same pointless road that much of this thread has taken i.e. speculating about what the majority of climbers think about this issue or about what degree of representative legitimacy opinions expressed through various forums should be accorded.

But it's simple really isn't it? - if we want to find out what the majority of BMC members want to happen, we ask them. All of them. Directly.

Why didn't we do this?

Well in my opinion its fairly obvious. Many of those opposing the Olympic bid wanted a full consultation. Not one, as far as I know, of those supporting the bid were in favour of asking the whole membership. Could this just possibly have been because this latter group feared that if the question was actually put to every member they would not be getting the answer they wanted to hear?

Can you understand why a lot of people might regard this as a rather shabby affair?

In reply to colin struthers: Ok we can dismiss.. or talk as equals..

In reply to colin struthers: And yes, maybe we should have.. but I still think the meeting turn out was nothing unusual. To suggest legitimacy issues is strange if you ask me.

In reply to colin struthers:
At the risk of being told to change the record, I am going to repeat the question I have asked you several times and which you seem intent on ignoring


Just suppose that In 2009, the BMC had elected a anti-comp president, 90% of those at the area meetings were opposed to the Olympics and no-one on the national council were prepared to vote in favour.

Would you have been happy if the Executive had insisted on holding an unprecedented referendum to see if they could change the decision ?


Or put it another way, if the BMC were to ignore it's constitution and undermine the national council by having regular referendums on contentious issues, what would be the threshold to trigger such a process ? 20 people ? 10%.of area meeting attendees ? One angry area chair ?

In reply to IainRUK:

You are quite right that anyone should be able to come a BMC area meeting and have their opinion heard. I am not questionning the 'legitimacy' of the meeting I chaired.

I understand that there is nothing in the rules that says that a particular faction cannot turn up en masse and sway a meeting in their chosen direction. However, the point I was trying to make was that under such circumstances the decision of the meeting is not necessarily going to reflect what the majority of ordinary members would have wanted.

Maybe this isn't such a big deal if the issue is less important - we put it down to the workings of a representative committee structure and move on.

However, a lot of people in the NW area felt that the BMC signing up to support the Olympic bid had potentially massive implications for the long term future of the organisation (see comments elsewhere on this thread about where the BCU has ended up). For this reason they felt that it was important for all members to be consulted before such a step was taken.

That seems fairly in keeping with what you might call the democratic spirit.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Don't be silly. The election of the BMC president was not a referendum about the Olympic issue - I voted for Rab myself. Does that mean I wanted the BMC to support Olympic climbing?

In your post you seem keen to hypothesise so let's just suppose two things,

1. That you are right and that all the officers and elected members of the BMC were unanimously in favour of the Olympic bid (really?!).

2. That a majority of ordinary members were actually opposed the BMC pursuing the Olympic bid ( since you were so implacably opposed to finding out what they wanted you can't really deny this as a possibility, can you?)

Then what does this say about the state of the representative democracy within the BMC? Or the role of people like you who sit on the BMC National Council but don't even post your anti-democratic opinions under your own name?

In reply to Rob Parsons: Rob, I am not going to make a declaration on every thread about any possible vested interest, that is what my profile is for and my views on comps are stated quite clearly in my profile.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: bruce, as you well know last time we had this debate I suggested you look at my profile so just trying to pretend you don't know my position on this issue. And as I have said to both you and Colin in previous threads you have no idea what my motivations are yet you feel happy to assume that I am in it just for the money, what is quite rude of you.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Vested interests are just that, if it is frequent for democratic organisations to require them being stated there may be a reason, don't you think? Does it necessarily mean the people concerned are being dishonest? Maybe it could be that experience has shown that human nature exists and should be taken into consideration.

In reply to colin struthers:

Of course it wasn't a referendum on the Olympics, but it wasn't a "who's got the best beard" contest either. There were clear differences between the candidates views and belief in competitions and support for the Olympics was one of them.


I helped draft the constitution that made the BMC more democratic and I stand by it as model of representative democracy. Policy decisions are made by elected representatives - if you think that's anti democratic then you really haven't a clue. But the constitution also allows for motions to be put to a simple vote at an AGM or EGM - if the membership were so outraged then why has no one done this ?

I'll start by declaring that I run a climbing wall.

Having read this thread (and a previous thread) it appears that those opposed to the bid are principally concerned about the future effect on traditional outdoor climbing in this country. Yet there is scant evidence to support these fears.
It is suggested that there would be a huge surge of new climbers which would lead to overcrowding at the crags. We have seen such a surge over the last ten years with many thousands of new climbers; but no one can tell me that our crags are overrun and crowded. Yes the usual few are as busy as ever, but most are as quiet as they have been since I started climbing in the mid-seventies. The vast majority of this influx are climbing indoors. The success of an Olympic bid won't bring in as big a number but again they will be best served by the indoor facilities. This is a fact and not speculation. Add another 50,000 climbers to the indoor market and you'll just get more and better indoor walls. Outdoor climbing will change as little as it has in the last few years when many times that number came into our activity.
Another concern is that trad climbing will succumb to bolted sports climbing. This is a spectre that is raised again and again and again. Yet there is no evidence of this. I well remember being told quite clearly that trad climbing in this country was finished. This was in the eighties; and in the nineties; and the noughties. For thirty years, I'll repeat that THIRTY YEARS, which is probably longer that many of the current posters have been climbing for, this argument has been put forward. Crags have become bolted venues but I challenge anyone to argue that many of them are great losses as trad venues. The vast number of climbers clipping bolts indoors has not translated to thousands of climbers demanding wholesale bolting outdoors; because they don't want it. Those who go outdoors predominately learn to use trad gear (and many do so on courses organised by climbing walls).
If climbing were to become an Olympic sport its effect would be concentrated on indoor walls. So if you enjoy hill walking, mountaineering, crags or multipitch, scrambling, soloing, dry tooling, chalk climbing, winter walking, winter climbing, ice climbing, buildering etc you won't notice much at all. If you go to walls or boulder you will; but in the main this will be catered for by new and bigger facilities. And as a lot of climbers who enjoy elements from the first list also climb indoors, they'll benefit as well.
A number of posters deride people who only climb indoors as some form of lesser non 'climber'. This is an appalling attitude. If a person is happy to concentrate on one or two disciplines amongst the many available, that is their choice. That attitude is as bad as saying someone who just climbs on crags isn't a proper climber because they haven't moved on to winter climbing, the Alps and finally the Himalayas. On one hand they are scorning these people and then using their vast numbers as the reason to be fearful. This hoard is going to destroy climbing as we know it...but the horde aren't actually interested in what they are purportedly going to destroy.
The BMC is in a difficult position. They represent climbing in this country. They have a membership but this is a small proportion of the active walkers, mountaineers and climbers. I believe their current membership is about 70,000 of which about 30,000 are climbers in one form or another. 30,000 is small proportion of the real numbers active; so even if you did poll them who could say that this minority represents the true picture. Especially as you'd hope members aspirations were skewed towards the outdoors. The BMC are aware that if they polled their members and got 20,000 'noes' then the climbing walls(who will benefit) could easily do their own poll and get 30 -40,000 'yeses'. As the nationally body how can they ignore this when considering their actions and policies.
Although I'm involved and would stand to benefit from a successful bid; I still asked myself what would be the effect on the sport I've been involved in for forty one years before committing myself. The answer was so little on outdoor and traditional climbing that the bid was worth pursuing.

This I agree with, it's a horrible attitude and one I would dearly love to rid UKC of...

In reply to Removed User:


Not me. I'm concerned that BMC funds and energy getting diverted away from supporting Mountaineering (ie access, safety etc.). If the olympic bid could be independantly funded and resourced I'd have less objection, although I still think competition climbing is really a minority sport and the version proposed this time is a complete mish mash.

In reply to Removed User:


I can. I'm sure Llech Ddu will be spared many extra people climbing them but the decent sport crags are getting busier - bordering on overcrowded. We have a very small number of decent sport routes in this country for years they were unaffected by rising standards as all the strong hip young things head pointed on grit and then boulders on grit. Sport climbing has come back into vogue as the number of gritstone head pointers has diminished, this process will accelerate if climbing goes in the Olympics (presumably, wider participation etc seems to be the major plus point people are hammering home above), we will get even more people queuing up to be the youngest person to climb Rindogs etc and as an old frt who needs months on these routes I don't like it!

In reply to Tyler:

I should qualify my last sentence. What I don't like is overcrowding not lots of young people rinsing my lifetime ambition routes, the latter I find inspiring

In reply to irish paul:


Why ? surely it depends on people's personal definition of what constitutes a proper climber.

In reply to GrahamD:

For me it's got nothing to do with the potential crag over-crowding or demand for bolting, nor any other possible imagined outcome. It's the definite outcome that the adventure, connection to the outdoors, and personal challenge that climbing and walking in the UKs mountains offer will be even more ruined by the increasing sportification and commercialisation of climbing, and by default, that of the outdoors.

In reply to Removed User:

perhaps the BMC shouldn't be calling their members "members" , rather subscribers, or donors, or customers ?

In reply to JayPee630:


How do you envisage going for a walk up a hill being ruined by the commercialisation of climbing? Has me going for a potter on my bike been ruined by the commercialisation of competitive cycling, or has having a kick around in the park been ruined by the commercialisation of football? It'd take a lot more than olympic status to get climbing as commercialised as either of those sports, but you haven't lost the people taking part at a low level and enjoying the activity for what it is...

In reply to JayPee630:

It's the definite outcome that the adventure, connection to the outdoors, and personal challenge that climbing and walking in the UKs mountains offer will be even more ruined by the increasing sportification and commercialisation of climbing, and by default, that of the outdoors.

Or 'punters' will find out that climbing isn't actually that hard and scarey and 'real' climbers will be shamed into not wearing their logoed t-shirts and approach shoes to work...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'd say looking at football is a perfect example of how money can ruin something in some ways! I'm not saying it would just wreck the whole thing per se, more that it's a slippery slope that we need to be careful and wary of just cheering ourselves along.

In reply to JayPee630:

That's a good point - ever since premier league players started earning silly money, it's impossible to go and enjoy a kick about in the park...

In reply to UKC News:

I gotta say - the argument that competition climbing will somehow spoil the sport for non-competitive climbers just sounds like the argument that allowing gay marriage will somehow devalue the marriage of straight couples...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Right, competition climbers can't have personal achievements or fun. Personally, I consider competition climbing to be an additional 8th category in Lito Tejada-Flores' famous essay.... It's just another game; some people enjoy it - why do you want to stop them having fun?

In reply to Jim Brooke:

Not even going to dignify your stupid comment about marriage with a reply.

As for the other comments above, I haven't said it will mean people won't be able to do it cos they've been tainted by something, but I do think it can lead to commercial pressures and a change of perspective that now seems hard to imagine, but in the long run will be damaging to the things that I and others think is special about climbing.

But anyway, I'm not saying it means people won't be able to do it, but you can't possibly deny the negative impact the commercialisation of football has had on the game and they way people perceive and interact with it can you really?

i'm glad squash made it. not bothered about climbing missing out

In reply to Tyler:

Although I was writing about trad crags my complete statement holds true for sports venues as well.

'but no one can tell me that our crags are overrun and crowded. Yes the usual few are as busy as ever, but most are as quiet as they have been...'

I was part of a conversation three, maybe four weeks ago which touched on this subject. There were at least twenty climbers who had visited sport venues last year and this year. I can't remember them all but of Portland, Brean, Ansteys,Cheddar, the Gower,Dinas and the sandstone, N Wales and the coast limestone, Yorkshire and the Peak; only a couple (parts of Portland and the Catwalk) were crowded. Unfortunately I'm working today and we've already had over 200 visits through the door. Apart from the usual couple, any sport venues with 200+ people on them today?

In reply to Removed User:
Point Well Made.

The more the climbing industry flourishes, the better the wall's can become. But also i fully support any venture that may raise the profile of climbing as a whole. As the influx of new climbers will mean more people can share in this amazing sport.

In reply to mountainman147:

What's your affiliation mountainman147, and what's your real name?

You have newly registered on this site, purely, it seems, to offer support to the Olympic bid, and, in general, the commercialisation of climbing. I always smell a rat when new posters pop up like that.

In reply to Rob Parsons: Strange because when I looked at his profile he registered back in 2009.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Yes, sorry - you are right, and I am wrong: I now see that's what the date on his profile does indeed say. Yet the *only* posts he's *ever* made appear to be the two he's made on this thread, so I'm still curious.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Someone seems finally moved to make their first post and you're straight at them....nice attitude.

In reply to JayPee630:

Stupid to make an analogy between another terrible UKC thread, and something that actually matters? Yeah, maybe. Stupid to connect the fallacy in your argument with that of the anti gay marriage lobby? Not at all...


But how can gay people getting married possibly change what marriage means for a straight couple? Sorry, what I mean is : how can competitions POSSIBLY change what YOU (and others) find special about climbing? What is it about climbing that you find valuable, and how will other people doing their comps change that? Let me guess - climbing without procreation is simply not climbing? Or a marriage without a scary runout is just not a marriage?


Which game? The kick about in the park has not been affected by premier league fees. Can't see that the Sunday leagues have either. Top flight football, well yeah, the sums of money involved have arguably caused problems for professional football. But how does that relate to climbing and the Olympics? Oh sorry, it's a slippery slope isn't it. The thing about slippery slopes is that there really is NO evidence that competition climbing can lead to people marrying sheep or telephones.

In reply to Jim Brooke:

The only argument I can see where Olympic competition climbing might have an effect on other aspects of climbing is that funding through sponsorship might be diverted away from top end adventure climbers putting up new routes on major peaks, in favour of sponsorship for Olympic competition climbers who will get sponsors names on to mainstream TV. I guess that could be the slippery slope from a conservative climber's viewpoint. Would it have any effect on Sunday league punters' enjoyment of Stanage or Saddle Head 3 or 4 weekends of the year? I doubt it.

In reply to teflonpete:
Would this argument not be better framed in terms of whether The BMC (and MCof S) are the appropiate bodies to run competition climbing and Olympic bids?

It seems likely that properly representing the majority of its members, who are not into competition climbing, and governing the minority that are will result in conflicts of interest especially over allocation of resources.

I do not participate in competitions but it looks to be an entertaining and worthwhile sport and if competition climbers want to be in the olympics let them, that's up to them, or would be if they had an independant governing body.

The BMC and McofS don't govern hill running races or mountainbike races, why do they govern competition climbing?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Well put, you clearly think before posting

In reply to rogerwebb:


It may have taken 200+ posts but this is indeed the main point at issue. There was actually very little the BMC did, or could have done, to affect the final outcome. The IFSC, on the other hand, was determined to push for Olympic status, always has been, and presumably will continue trying whether the BMC is for or against.

Should be the BMC be in charge of comps. Well, it was reluctant in the early days, but did so (I believe) out of a feeling that comps were better under it's tight control that outside. And of course the big fear was that a commercial organisation would take charge and instigate a comp at an outdoor crag - there were such comps in Europe and of course we almost had one on slate.

Of course now comps are well established, but I'm pretty sure no-one would dream of one on anything other than an artificial wall.

IMHO if climbing had got into the Olympics then it might well have been necessary to set up a new body, primarily due to the need to ring fence funds. I also think that had the BMC gone against the IFSC then the only honest course of action would have been to recognise that it wasn't fairly representing comp climbers and to relinquish it's role in that respect. What I don't agree with is the notion expressed by many that the BMC should ignore all those doing comps, or worse still kick them out . Setting up a sister body is one thing, but leaving a vacuum for a rival to step into is another.

There is however, a certain economy of scale in keeping things in one organisation, but there is also the bonus that you create contacts on one issue that can be of benefit elsewhere. Some people seem to have got annoyed by Rob Adie's media appearances, but it means that more people in the media have heard of the BMC, which is useful for a pressure group.

But most of all competition climbing is a form of climbing, it's not how I climb, but then neither is ice climbing. I don't have kids and i'm not in a club, but I don't complain about the work the BMC does there. And if you really think all the BMC has done in the last year is ltry to get climbing into the Olympics, then you are very much mistaken.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't think that all the BMC has done is push for the Olympics, and in many ways that is the problem. It would seem to be in the interests of competition climbing that it is in the Olympics (funding etc), but it would also seem a huge irelevance to the bulk of BMC and MCofS members.

This in itself must make it at the very least difficult for the BMC to represent the majority and simultaneously govern the minority.

It seems to me that a representative body has no real business acting as a governing body. The two roles are at least arguably incompatible.

If I were a competition climber I would find the idea that a body, the bulk of whose members have vastly different views and in many cases hostile views to my own were keeping my sport 'under it's tight control' objectionable.

Conversely as someone who enjoys rockclimbing, hillwalking and winter climbing I am surprised that my representative body is devoting time and energy to governing a seperate indoor sport.

It is true that climbing is part of mountaineering and competition climbing is a form of climbing, but hill races are a form of mountaineering as is downhill skiing. The BMC and MCofS lack of involvement in either has done neither those sports nor the wider interests of BMC/MCofS membership any harm at all.

Perhaps it is time for competition climbing to make its own way?

In reply to rogerwebb:


Could not agree more. I resent every penny of my BMC subs (which I have to pay as a condition of membership of my club) that goes on comps and I can well imagine that comp climber resent their sport being an (often unwelcome) adjunct to the BMC.

Time for a parting of the ways. I think

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You'll end up with a far weaker body. A body for boulderers, sport climbers, trad climbers, hill walkers, mountaineers, hill runners, mountain bikers. Or one central body which tries to represent all of its different interests.

In reply to IainRUK:

I can see the slipperly slope/thin end of the wedge potential here but I think that outdoor climbing in its many forms has a common thread but comp climbing seems like a different game that just happens to share some of the same techniques. You're a runner so maybe fell running and track athletics would be a reasonable comparison?

In reply to IainRUK:

Hill running races and mountain bike races are already organised and governed by seperate bodies. In what way does that weaken the BMC?

Why would competition climbing taking a similar path do so?

In reply to rogerwebb: Governed is probably the wrong word..

The FRA is purely fell racing. access rights by enlarge are dealt with by the BMC.

But it also set up with UKA.

Why take it out, you just spend more for a smaller body, lose sport england funding presumably, just makes it entirely more complex.

For me its a backwards step.

In reply to IainRUK: One thing to add.. we have BOFRA, FRA, WFRA, SHR, WMR, NIMRA.. in Britain and Northern Ireland who represent fell racing.. its all a bit of a mish mash. The FRA like handing out bans, yet a ban in unenforceable sport wide, for example, as the sport is so splintered.

In Wales we have the Welsh Mountain Running Champs and the Welsh Fell Running Champs..

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


If there was a 'parting of the ways' the result would be a second national organisation to represent climbers in the UK. That organisation would have a built in pro-bolt bias, because all the trad climbers would have stayed in the BMC. Is this a good thing? You may think the new organisation should just organise comps but that would be up to it's members and management and organisations like to grow.

In reply to IainRUK:
Governed is the word used by the BMC for competition climbing

In reply to rogerwebb: No you said FRA govern the sport, which they govern a small part but its so fragmented.. within and between nations. For me its a problem and unfortunate. So climbing has the chance to not make the same mistakes.

No doubt some will just be from one camp, but most out doors people climb, run, walk, and the BMC is a great all encompassing body. It has its issues, I think meetings can be dominated by the minority, voices not heard, but I still think its heading in the right direction and any splits would not be.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Would it? Competition climbing is an indoor sport, all other activities covered by the BMC are outdoor.

It also should be remembered that 'climbing' is merely part of BMC/MCofS remit. Certainly here in Scotland there are far more hill walkers than climbers (though of course there is a substantial overlap)

In this debate one should be careful not to conflate competition climbing with sport climbing. They are two different if related things.

In reply to IainRUK:

Actually I didn't say who governed hill racing, just indicated that it is.

The second part of your answer really shows the problem 'most outdoors people climb,run walk and the BMC is agreat all encompassing body' the issue of course is that this all encompassing body that represents a wide range of outdoor activities is governing an indoor sport.

Can one body adequately represent outdoor sports and govern an indoor sport.

If all hill running races were governed by a single body how would that adversely effect the BMC?

In reply to rogerwebb: Is comp climbing in doors? I didn't think it was. It is in the UK, but world wide?

It wouldn't, re the last point.

But it gets messy, don't the BMC get money from Sport England? (if they still exist), and then who then gets that.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I don't see why not, but then I don't agree with those who think indoor climbing is massively differant and vastly inferior to outdoor climbing. Of course some people only climb indoors, and some only climb outdoors, but most people, including the vast majority of comp climbers and those working at walls, do both.

Links with walls are very useful for the BMC - not just for recruitment but also disseminating information. And remember that comp climbers tend to be younger - often kids - so introducing them to the wonders of the BMC at an early age is good (you can tell I was raised a Catholic).

Comparisions with other sports may be useful, but I don't think any of them represent best practice. For example cycling is split between a competitive body (British Cycling) and a sort of pressure group (CTC), although BC also is a bit of pressure group and it seems many in the CTC don't think they should cover mountain biking. A lot of mountain bikers look at the BMC with envy.

In reply to rogerwebb:

The BMC/MCoS seem to be doing a good job of both. I like the way the MCoS runs the competitions and I've got no problem with their other work although it's less important to me personally since access is a legal right.

I agree that sport climbing isn't the same as comp climbing. My point is that once you have a separate body it's up to that body what it does and organisations like to expand.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I quite agree that indoor climbing is not inferior to outdoor climbing but it is certainly different. And competion climbing is a different thing again.

Why would links with walls disappear if the BMC did not govern competition climbing?

I am not qualified to comment on the views of mountain bikers but there appeared to be an argument in this thread that the BMC represented them anyway.

My question is about whether a representatve body can be a governing body where the governed may well have interests contrary to the represented.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm sure they do, the issue arises as I said above when the interests of the competitors clash with the represented. What happens with funding? What happens if climbing is in the Olympics? Sport Scotland would put money into medal prospects, where does that money come from? Would it come out of the money given for the other activities of MCofS? How would McofS deal with that conflict?

I've got no problem with their other work although it's less important to me personally since access is a legal right.
I am glad you are so optimistic, if MCofS/BMC packed up the access work I rather suspect we would miss them quite quickly. If you read the Land Reform Scotland Act you will see that it is quite proscriptive.


Yes indeed, that is the point, a representative organisation moving into governing a competitive sport and making an Olympic bid. That's a pretty big expansion!

I suspect the group most likely to benefit from a separate body for competition climbing would be competition climbers, followed closely by sport climbers. Everyone else would lose out due to a triumph of dogma over good sense.

Many countries now have 2 governing/representative bodies and it seems to me that the one responsible for managing competitions is commonly the one in receipt of most government support, although I confess I don't have data to support that empirically.

Consider the situation once a separate body has responsibility for comps. Which of the 2 bodies is then more likely to be appropriate for consulting on sport climbing matters? The comps body or the mountaineering body?

And when this new body has responsibility for sport climbing too, which body will then more likely be appropriate for consulting on (trad) crag climbing matters? The sport cragging body or the mountaineering body?

And so it goes on. If dogma were to cause the BMC to jettison comp climbing for any reason, the slope would indeed be a slippery one and I believe the people most opposed to comp climbing would be the ones most horrified by the outcome, regardless of how smug they would be on gaining the initial decision.

Aside from the many national bodies which are now split as a result of comp or sport climbing (and whose original bodies have since lost influence as a result) consider also the plight of the UIAA, which foolishly allowed/encouraged the IFSC to separate - and even more foolishly allowed it to be called a body for sport climbing.

In reply to john arran:

Which if it is the case rather neatly discloses the conflict of interest in the current set up.

The one that deals with access and safety in the outsdoors I would hope.

There seems to be an assumption that those who don't think that BMC/MCofS should be the governing bodies of competition climbing are opposed to competition climbing. Why should that be?

Again why conflate competition climbing with sport climbing. They are two different things are they not?

In reply to john arran:
Well said

In reply to rogerwebb:

Re-read the post. He pointed out that the IFSC somehow being 'responsible' for both sport climbing and comps is a problem - because they are not the same thing.... Just like grit trad and alpinism are totally different things. A single body can understand it has individual members who participate in more than one type of climbing, and is thereby better placed to best represent it's members (sometimes conflicting) interests.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Your posts hit the nail on the head.

Most climbers are not opposed to competitions per se, why should they be? everyone to their own etc.

And most climbers, even if they don't like the idea of the Olympic circus impinging on their sport and how it is perceived in the wider world, probably don't think that they are entitled to obstruct the efforts of those who want to get competition climbing into the Olympics.

But a lot of climbers, and in my opinion probably a very clear majority of BMC members, do not want their representative body committing a disproportionate amount of time and money to promoting competitions or to pursuing Olympic participation when only a tiny minority of climbers are actually involved in this aspect of our sport.

For this reason I agree with you that we should encourage competition climbers to form their own independent organisation. I would be happy for the BMC to provide them with some financial assistance to do this and I don't see why such a separation could not be achieved on amicable terms. In the long run an independent competition climbing organisation might well decide to affiliate to the BMC as other representative bodies associated with climbing already do.

Unfortunately none of those speaking on behalf of competition climbers appear to want this to happen. I think we need to be honest about why this is the case.

It seems to me that over the last 10 years the BMC has been persuaded to commit significantly greater funding and officer time to promoting competition climbing than would be justified by the level of climber participation in competitions or by the extent of Government funding actually received for the purposes of supporting competitive climbing.

This is not merely idle speculation on my part, I met with the BMC Chief Exec and Deputy last year to go through the figures and I think it is fair to say that they broadly concede that this is indeed the case.

If the BMC is effectively using the subscription and other income received from ordinary members to provide a disproportionate subsidy to competition climbing then we shouldn't be that surprised if competition climbers don't much fancy setting up thier own organisation.

Furthermore, in relation to the bid for Olympic status, it was obviously very helpful for competition climbers to push their case under the banner of a representative body that has over 75,000 individual members and can claim to represent many more. I don't imagine that the bid documentation made much reference to the actual numbers regularly taking part in competitions in the UK (a few hundred, low thousands?) or to the very low number of spectators at events (even lower if we discount family and friends of the participants). Or to the fact that a significant number of climbers see competitions as antithetical to the core values of the sport and were therefore either uninterested in or actually opposed to climbing making it into the Olympics.

Not really surprising though, competition climbers are going to do their best to present the strongest case they can and we shouldn't blame them for that.

However, the rest of us, the majority in fact, who are not interested in competition climbing, should not let ourselves be conned about what has actually been happening. Competition climbers and the lobby of support they get from commercial vested interests have done a very neat job in getting the BMC to promote their own particular minority interest at the expense of the organisations broader membership.

That, in my opinion, is the main reason why we might be pleased that the Olympic bid has failed and why we should now turn outr thoughts to the relationship between cometition climbing and the broader climbing community.

In reply to IainRUK:


Competition climbing is one thing, but mountain biking?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Non-competitive indoor climbing is undoubtedly part of the broad church of climbing and does not happen outdoors.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I was contemplating that very point at Inverness bouldering wall last night!

In reply to Jim Brooke:

I'm not sure I follow how the IFSC being responsible for sport climbing and competition is a problem but the BMC being responsible for both is not.

The 'problem' would be solved if the IFSC was responsible for competition climbing only.

The fundamental issue I have is the dichotomy between 'governing' and 'representing' when the intersts of the 'governed' are not the same as the 'represented'.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Why can't a body do both ? More to the point how much "governance" is required in the UK comp scene. Unless climbing gets in the olympics it is likely to remain fairly low key and most of what the BMC does is "representation" anyway.

I think were are a long way off they day when climbers are summoned to West Didsbury to answer a charge of bringing the sport into disrespect after a punch up in the VIP area of the Broadfield!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

A body can do both, but it will do neither well and the consequences may be bitter divorce rather than amicable separation and co-existence.

If competition climbing does get in there will be a lot of governance. Money will flow in, competitors will need to be full time competition climbers and nothing else. Funding bodies will tend to see mountaineering as competition climbing. The competitive sector will grow to dominate and the rest (of the BMC/McofS function) will wither as funders want to see results, and results will be measured in medals.

Better to have a clear distinction now and establish (or re-establish) reasons for putting money into non competitive sport, then both can flourish.

If competitive climbing does make it into the Olympics , and if that is what participants want I hope it does, then the day will have arrived when a participant will be summoned for bringing the sport into disrespect.

The future is probably that competition climbing will become bigger and get into the Olympics, good luck to it, but the rest of us better be ready for the unintentioned consequences.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Seriously? Do you understand why it would be a problem if the BMC was split into trad and sport bodies? (Both of which would be completely free to claim a mandate for their fixed gear policies?)

In reply to rogerwebb:


Agreed, if comp climbing gets into the olympics much will change.

But it's another 4 years before it gets another chance, and even then it's clearly a long shot. So why split up the BMC now, for the sake of something that may never happen ?

In reply to Jim Brooke:

I don't follow the connection between my post and this comment. I have not and never would suggest that the BMC be split into sport and trad bodies (and I note you ignore the bulk of members who hill walk).

I suggest that competition climbing should be governed (in terms of Olympic bids and participation) by an independant body.

Again one should be careful to remember that sport climbing and competition climbing are two different things.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think it will happen. What bothers me is that apparently most competition climbers would like to be an Olympic Sport, it is not apparent that this is a high priority for most BMC/MCofS members.

Either the two bodies misrepresent their members by devoting their energies to that outcome or let down the competition climbers by being less than wholly committed to their aspirations.

A stage in between would be to set up the running of competitions so that in the event of success in an Olympic bid it could be immediately hived off to be an independant body.

I don't know what the statistics are for BMC but for MCofS competition climbing intersts 7% of the membership who responded to a survey. The largest minority of members are hill walkers. Hence my question as to whether BMC/MCofS are the appropiate vehicles to make Olympic bids for that 7%.

The difficulty in discussions on this forum is that there is a tendency to attribute views to participants that they do not have. (see above)I am posing a question, I tend to the idea that BMC/MCofS should not have the role they have but I am open to persuasion.

In reply to UKC News: What would be an acceptable level of bribe to pay the members of the IOC to swing the vote in climbing's direction? Would we have to increase subs' or would it be better to set up an 'BMC Bribe Fund' along the same lines as the 'bolt fund'? If you wanted to contribute you could, whereas if you didn't approve of that kind of thing your subscription money would not be used to finance the lifestyles of corrupt members of the IOC.

In reply to rogerwebb:

You asked why some of us think there's a problem with the IFSC representing sport and comps. It's because it creates an unnatural dividing line between it and the UIAA. I just gave an extreme example as an illustration of how a comparable division would cause a problem at the national level, and hoped you might extrapolate (but you don't have to if you don't want).

In reply to rogerwebb:

Personally, I expect the BMC or MCofS to represent their members interests with a reasonable degree of proportion. A quick Google tells me that the BMC spends 9% of it's specialist programme on comps. I'm happy with that.

Incidentally, the same quick Google sesh told me that while indeed only 7% of the MCofS membership want high priority for competitions, the proportion of members who think competition climbing should be dropped is only 6%...

In reply to Jim Brooke:
There are crossed lines here I still don't follow you.

My view is that competition climbing should be seperately represented and governed. I cannot see any logical reason why that body should have any input into sport climbing.

I don't wish to 'drop' competition climbing. It appears to be a popular and growing sport. I question whether it is best served by being governed by BMC/MCofS.

I get the impression, but may be wrong, that you are assuming that I am anti competition climbing. Far from it, but I do see it as developing into a sport as divergent from the mainstream activities of BMC/MCofS membership as downhill mountainbiking.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I know you didn't suggest that. You seemed to think john_arran had conflated competitions and sport climbing. I pointed out he was just saying the IFSC/UIAA division was a mistake, and then I gave some reasons why it was a mistake. Honestly, I don't know what more to say....


Efficiency of scale is the reason competitions are better served by the BMC/MCofS right now, imho. Setting up a separate body would involve duplicating administrative tasks already catered for by the BMC/MCofS, that I suspect would make it non-viable. Just look at the figures spent by the BMC on comps; they are small. Given that competitors and spectators are already represented by the BMC in some way, through their other climbing activities, and given that the membership are happy with the current arrangement, I see no logical reason to split. All the arguments I've read in this thread are slippery slope fallacies.


I didn't make that assumption.

In reply to UKC News: personally i'm disapointed climbing failed to make the olympics.i find the ifsc stuff really entertaining to watch. i really feel there's a whole lot of snobbery against indoor climbing and i think that has to change, sure they are both different. but as someone who enjoys both, i feel (especially in rain soaked scotland) that they both have to go hand in hand to progress as a climber

In reply to UKC News:

The majority of comps in the UK involve kids from 6 -17 years old.

Most of these kids will go on to some form of mountaineering when they're older. I see it as the BMC and MCofS investing in the future of our sport.

In reply to Jim Brooke:

Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I got diverted by rather pressing issues.

I think you (and others) have converted me to the status quo, not philisophically but because we are where we are and at present it works. You quite correctly raise the costs and problems inherent in any reorganisation and the desireability of not starting from here does not alter the fact that we did.

In the event of a succesful Olympic bid however, I would have strong reservations about BMC/MCofS remaining as the governing body of competition climbing.

In reply to rogerwebb: There seems to be some confusion further up the thread regarding the use of the word 'Sport' in the IFSC's name. The name was chosen in order to:

1. Not continue the war with the UIAA, hence IFC/ICF was not chosen.
2. You wouldn't have 'Competition' in the name as no other governing bodies have eg FIS isn't FISC
3. You need a unique name, you wouldn't want the same initials as another existing sport governing body eg ICC is cricket, ICF is a fighting federation

So IFSC was chosen.