UKC

Alex Puccio has gone on a veritable killing spree at Magic wood, climbing five problem in the ~8A region in three days. The scary part is that the conditions weren't even good...
Right now Alex and Chris Webb-Parsons, are chilling in Cresciano, though "chilling" is most definitely the wrong word...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=58269

With a slight danger of this news being overshadowed by a different story, it is probably worth mentioning that this is a world class bouldering spree by Puccio.

Alan

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC: yes but what about the image mr james? why is this okay?

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC: hello? what relevance has the magazine to anything please? all i can smell is hypocrisy here!!!

In reply to thommi:


Do you want to tell us why you think it is not ok?

In reply to Tyler:

I'd have thought that an image of her bouldering, of which there seem to be plenty, would be more relevant to the news story.

In reply to Tall Clare:

On the page linked to there appears to be two stories, one about her bouldering with a picture of her bouldering, and one about her cover shoot, illustrated with a picture of the cover shoot.

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC:

At the end of the video it calls it "A Five Dog Workout" .... seems a bit harsh on the girls.
Some of them are quite attractive.

In reply to Tyler:

Yeah - I noticed that too. Don't know why this page doesn't also have the bouldering picture. Perhaps it's a glitch somewhere.

In reply to Tyler: double standards fella. consistancy in agenda of this website is kinda silly. Claire right in the sense that a pic of her climbing would be more appropriate, however its more that I 'could' be offended at that picture, but UKC thinks its ok. however they go out of their way to make sure other things that may upset me (or others, sponcors and otherwise are censored. there is no consistancy.

In reply to gavin: dont go there fella!! theres people watching!! lol though.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Which begs the question of why the news of the world class bouldering spree is being reported by UKC in a way that overshadows/trivialises the achievement? It seems quite deliberate to me.

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC:

More UKC punter bollox. Girl crushes hard problems, climbs at world class level and all the UKC massive can do is moan about which pic you've used.

Good climbing news, keep up the good work.

Thanks for all your comments.

We had two stories here that came to light at the same time and were independently made live by two different members of staff at the weekend (when inter-staff communication is poor). When I spotted this I combined the two stories (slightly clumsily - Jack has now sorted it better).

The image with this thread is from one story. Yes, a picture of her bouldering would have been more appropriate but once these thread images get created it is quite difficult to edit them. A good point though and on reflection we got this wrong.

I locked the other thread to stop other issues that are around at present swamping what is an amazing climbing achievement by Alex Puccio.

UKC has no policy against displaying provocative images of women where they are appropriate to a story, what we are strongly against is laddish chat that surrounds images of women and this we act on when we become aware of it.

Thanks

Alan

In reply to thommi:

I'm anxious not to get drawn into an argument here as it may look like I have strong feelings on this either way when, in fact, I'm completely ambivalent, but I'm just wondering how you 'could' be offended by the picture? I've only seen the one picture so if there are others of her clubbing a seal or burning a koran then I've missed them but I'm surprised that scantily clad women could cause offence, are you offended? Is anyone? How much exposed flesh do you think is acceptable?

In reply to Alan James - UKC: well her pictures dont kill the magic for me.dont care what anyone says,sex sells.she is a brilliant climber-fact.she is a great looking girl-fact.so whats wrong with combining the two?

In reply to all: Im going to shut up as some of you have missed my point. Brilliant ascents, inspiring stuff. Cat - punter bollox maybe, but theres more going on than just that fella. lets not muddy the water here, FANTASTIC work from Puccio. Sorry to have distracted from that.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

No the other thread has been locked because it has issues and posts that show UKC in an unfavourable light.

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC: What a load of bollocks!

Another example of the media using a well known technique to sell more stuff and promote themselves with, in my opinion, no credibility or integrity. What does this honestly do for climbing other than turning it into a daily mail style beauty contest load of shite?

No doubt these women will get more attention throughout their careers for being people who get their kit off to sell magazines instead of being recognised for their sporting achievements. If they can justify it to themselves then so be it. To post this on the front page of UKC is in my opinion, ridiculous!

In reply to CragRat11: And to say that this is just about Alex Puccio doing loads of hard problems in magic wood is equally ridiculous.

In reply to CragRat11:

This was genuinely a coincidence and not a premeditated decision. As I explained above, two separate reports were uploaded at roughly the same time by two different people, in different countries, during a time when we we tend to not communicate as much with each other - weekends.

One was a genuine bouldering story that the wrong image was chosen to promote. The other was a general interest story that some like and others don't. Due to the fact that our home page was covered with these images, I made the decision to combine the two news items, and play down the cover story one in favour of the climbing one. This has now had the effect of making it look like we were trying to 'sex up' a story - that wasn't the case.

I do recognise that this story hasn't been handled well but that was down to a coincidence. We have learnt from this experience and will be more careful in future.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Sorry about the rant, maybe I went a little overboard.

I just think that how good you look in a bikini has nothing to do with climbing/snowboarding/skiing etc. As role models for younger girls I think portraying this sort of half naked barbie girl image is damaging and it shouldn't be promoted. If you make a living as a page 3 girl then fair enough but she is a climber. Maybe i'm wrong.

In reply to CragRat11:

Maybe look at it the other way. Even girls that look good in a bikini can climb well. What's wrong with that?

In reply to CragRat11: http://www.prana.com/blog/index.php/tag/alex-puccio/

You can click on this link and let her know directly.

In reply to CragRat11:

I think it's an issue for all women in sport. Victoria Pendleton got way more coverage for her cycling gold at the Olympics than Rebecca Romero because she's more photogenic and was willing to strip for a lads mag. Anna Kournicova and Ana Ivanovic get way more press than Serena Williams or Justine Hennin despite not being nearly as talented.

Professional climbers rely on sponsorship and I guess doing photo shoots like this will help attract more money to keep doing what they love. I just hope it doesn't get to the stage where sponsorship for girls depends entirely on looks rather than ability.

I think UKC is generally really good at reporting female ascents though. It's not the Daily Mail just yet!

In reply to CragRat11:


The thing is on the one hand we slate islamic countries for forcing their female inhabitants to cover themselves from head to toe, yet in this country if a woman chooses of her own volition to appear scantily clad in a magazine again that's somehow wrong.

These women are athletes / sportspeople first and foremost. It's how they have come to be recognised and they already have an established base of publicity and support based on their abilities. The idea that by choosing to do a photo shoot they undermine that seems daft. And the idea that it's unfair that talented and beautiful people to get more press than those who are just talented is a little naive, don't you think? Our entire society is biased towards the success of the good-looking - it's embedded in us all at a very basic level.

I'm not sure how much I've thought this argument through and how much I'm playing devil's avocado, by the way.

In reply to quadmyre:


It does to me too.

It's normal to enjoy looking at people who are beautiful, just as it's normal to admire people who achieve excellence. It's not something to be ashamed of and it's not weird or unhealthy - what's weird and a bit unhealthy is pretending that we don't like seeing gorgeous (and yes, even sometimes naked) people.

In reply to quadmyre:


I think the argument is one of context. Whether or not you accept the argument that gaining climbing sponsorship is hard and why shouldn't someone in Alex's position leverage her good looks to get more publicity; it's another thing entirely to conflate reports of her successes with those images. In this instance, you have about 150 words talking about the world class bouldering spree, and 200 words talking about a photo shoot she did. Now personally I think that is quite badly skewed, and a poor editorial decision that is disrespectful to Alex enough when you are talking about one of the world's top female boulderers on an outstanding run of form, because it is implicitly saying the photo shoot is more newsworthy than the bouldering.

It's the same argument as the UKC coverage when Beth Rodden did Meltdown - the news (of the hardest female trad ascent in the world) was illustrated with an utterly inappropriate photo which trivialised the ascent and trivialsed her as an athlete. The photo has been changed but look at the comments on the thread if you need an illustration of this. ( http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=289377 ) The argument is not that the photo shouldn't exist or is inherently offensive, it's just that it's inappropriate to report news of a sporting success with that image because it trivialises the news, and ultimately people's reactions will be very predictably oriented towards the image and not to the ascent.


Except there is a male/female bias here. Male athletes tend to get assessed on their athletic ability, female athletes are much more assessed on a combination of their athletic ability AND their appearance. That is unfair, because it doesn't present a level playing field for female athletes. Look at the comments on the Rebecca Adlington thread (though I gather the more out of order ones have been removed)

Closer to home, Alex Johnson I believe has raised exactly the same concerns recently.
http://climbingnarc.com/2010/08/climbers-are-sexy-but-is-the-sport-getting-...

In reply to plexiglass_nick:


I think you're conflating two issues here: relevance and value.

The photo may well not have been relevant. That would be a good reason not to include it. But you seem to be going further than that and saying that the value is reduced by a photo which concentrates on her appearance.

A photo of someone looking good can only be considered to trivialise what they're doing if you think looking good is trivial. I don't, and I don't think many other people do either; I think most of us accept that looking good is very important to some people and that most people really like seeing people who look good.

People who look good and want to look good should be allowed to look good, shouldn't they? And those of use who like looking at them should be allowed to, surely?

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

It may just be coincidence. Quite often it seems reports of successes are very short simply because the information isn't available yet. I don't know the circumstances but I'd hazard a guess the report might even have been based on just a text, facbook post or an 8a.nu scorecard so not much to flesh it out with, hence the lack of word count. Björn googles looking for something additional to make it a fuller article and comes across the Outside material so adds that on - no shortage of info available as it's all over the Outside site.

As for the Beth picture again Jack explained that on the thread in question:

"In an ideal world we would have a great photo of Beth on that route, but we don't. The only photo on our database that we have of Beth is the one I have used (unless there is one I missed in my search - quite probably).

Check out the Alpinist link, they don't have a shot either. I've blasted out several emails trying to get A. more of the story, B. a picture of the route and C. a quick interview with Beth.

Until any of that comes off (which it may or may not - for an example see the Katy Whittaker article: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=858 ) I have to put a pic up to accompany the news story. Beth is obviously happy with this pic as she posed for it!

I don't have rights to any online pictures of Beth Rodden, so we don't have much to choose from."

Given the choice between a timely article with an available publicity shot, a timely article with no picture at all, or an article a month after the event with a proper picture which would you prefer?

In reply to quadmyre & niggle:

Sorry I don't have time to go into a full discussion though I do think it is a complex issue and there aren't necessarily any easy answers. The discussion on the climbingnarc link is worth reading.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

It's really hard to know where to start on that load of contradictory bollocks - presuming of course that I've understood what you're trying to say.

Your argument is akin to Wayne Rooney having his wedding paid for by the media, then complaining when the media report him shagging prostitutes. You can't run with the hare and the hounds. Are you aware of her being forced to have her picture taken half-naked? It seems more likely to me that she chose to do so. I'd be interested to know if she's bleating about both stories being reported on at the same time, with one story having <gasp> 50 more words than the other!

Interesting also that the discussion about the wording of her "killing spree" was immediately censored by UKC. Strangely sensitive.

In reply to wayno265: That isn't t the point being made though.
The underlying point is: good looks aren't gained through years of hard work and single-minded dedication to a goal - you don't decide one day to be good-looking and then work towards that goal. Climbing at an elite level on the other hand requires single-minded determination and sheer hard work.
Which should be 'rewarded' more - and I use the term rewarded to mean recognised/promoted by the media in this case - the hard-earned climbing ability or the looks you were born with through sheer fluke. It's a question of giving credit where it's due.

In reply to petejh: I think I understand that. However, if, in a parallel universe I had a 10" cock and could boulder V16, starred in a porn film then went on a "killing spree" (which in this context means climbing hard stuff apparently), I would hardly be in a position to bleat about the media reporting my porn antics with equal vigour!

In any case, the report Mick Ryan did about her being on the cover of a magazine talks almost exclusively about her climbing prowess and record.

There's a lot of people on this site who like to assert their moral superiority by being offended on other people's behalf.

In reply to wayno265: But would UKC report your porn antics?

If Chris Sharma was More magazine's 'Torso of the Week', would it be considered newsworthy? If he was on the cover in his undercrackers, being lauded as gorgeous, would we be reading about the fact on ukc?

I think probably not.

In reply to wayno2265:
What Alyson said.

You're mixing up the athelete concerned complaining about the media coverage with the public complaining about the coverage. In the first instance you're right. In the second instance it's up to the media which angle to use with a story. In this case UKC have decided to go with Puccio's glamour photo angle, no-one forced them to and some people are questioning whether a glamour shoot has much relevance to a bouldering 'killing spree'.

In reply to Alyson:

I don't know, I'm just hoping I've started a rumour that will perpetuate itself...


No idea. But he is a good-looking chap isn't he? I'm not, but if I was I would.


You could be right.

Where do you stand on Ms Puccio posing in such a fashion? Do you think she might just be doing herself a dis-service?

In reply to petejh:

Well, it's a confusing issue. You have a talented, hard-working and successful climber who takes what appears to be a conscious decision to exploit her looks. When two separate issues get reported at the same time, a number of people get offended (or at least pretend to). Has anyone criticised her for selling-out? Surely her decision to have the photo taken is at the crux of the issue. I can't see how you can criticise UKC without criticising her.

Another issue is whether society dictates that a female athlete "needs" to exploit her looks.

In reply to wayno265:


I think she lives in a society where women are valued too much on their looks. I don't think she's helping change this much, but then I don't place the burden of responsibility on her to try and alter the whole world's perception of female achievement.

I'm pretty ambivalent about how she chooses to portray herself in the media, but is it newsworthy that she's on a magazine cover in her underwear? No. Not even close.

In reply to Alyson:

Sex sells.

She needs sponsorship to fund what appears to be a great lifestyle.

It doesn't offend me or anyone I know.

I looked at the picture but didn't read the article about the magazine shoot because I wasn't interested.

P.S. I definitely would.

She's a young dirtbag climber, and very talented.

She probably got a call from Outside asking,

"Hey do you want to appear in a photo-shoot for Outside magazine. We are doing a profile and fashion shoot of young women outdoor athletes?"

What would anyone say? Especially a 22 year old these days.

"Hmm sounds good. Can you assure me the images will not be sexist, exploitative and demeaning to women? If you can, I'll let you talk to my agent"

I think not.

Good on her I say.

I bet she'll get an agent soon though.

In reply to wayno265:
The key point being 'two seperate issues get reported at the same time'.

I think it's entirely possible to report a climber's achievements on the rock and in the same article not report same climber's achievements in the photo studio. After all there's already an excellent magazine article detailing Puccio's hot body and climbing ability in Outside magazine, do we need a copy-cat article on UKC? I think only the staff of UKC can answer whether they think they need to provide these sort of articles or not.
Don't mistake me for being offended by pictures of hot chicks btw. I like them, in their place.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:mazing climbing achievement by Alex Puccio.

Hmm, strange, so your happy to publish "provocative images of women" which are likely to elicit "laddish chat" but then censor such "laddish chat" when it appears in relation to

It seems contradictory to publish "provocative images of women" and tacitly acknowledge the response it may evoke, but then quell that response when it inevitably appears.

Surely if you do not approve of "laddish chat" then you should not be provoking it by publishing "provocative images of women"?

Or maybe I'm missing something?

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC: Look, Puccio is no different to the rest of us, just a better climber and better looking. She's posed in some skimpy gear to pay for an autumn's bouldering in Europe - who here wouldn't.
I'm sure she knows that dirty old men will drool over her, but who cares when you're crushing font 8a in the sun. I know I wouldn't, and the thought of dirty old men drooling over me in a bikini is really quite nasty.

In reply to slacky:

For sure. We're not talking porn here, we're talking about bikini shots and fairly sensible ones at the. UKC should not be prevented from highlighting a top female boulder's media profile by a minority of idiots who can't glimpse a bit of flesh without with making some daft comment.

If I got ask to pose for a magazine because they thought I was a superstar in my sport and also because I was sexy, I'd BE F****** YEAHHHH!!!! I'll do that, get recognized, get more sponsors and pay for more free trips and possibly don't have to work for the rest of my life and just do this boring poses and keep climbing which will maintain my sexxxinesss!!! I would love to have women drool over me!!! Just the thought is very flattering...

Man I wish someone could ask me to do that...

Sorry I didnt even bother reading everyone's post, I just have a lot of respect for Alex Puccio with her climbing and what a bonus that she is pretty darn hot...very blessed and respect her wishes whatever she wants to do with it..

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:
'She's a young dirtbag climber, and very talented.
She probably got a call from Outside asking,
"Hey do you want to appear in a photo-shoot for Outside magazine. We are doing a profile and fashion shoot of young women outdoor athletes?"
What would anyone say? Especially a 22 year old these days.
"Hmm sounds good. Can you assure me the images will not be sexist, exploitative and demeaning to women? If you can, I'll let you talk to my agent"
I think not.
Good on her I say. '

Maybe. Thanks for painting us that picture of events.
It diverts attention away from the question which is being asked on here by others though, which is: why did ukc feel the need to go into detail about a girl's magazine glamour shoot in an article about same girl's bouldering 'killing spree'.

Personally I'd log on to ukc a lot more if you just dropped the pretense of serious journalism and went all out with a no-holds barred 'Dead Fit Birds Who Go Climbing' photo special on the front page. It'd save me the time of sifting through pages of moron-talk to find the hot bits.

In reply to dynouk:

So what you're basically saying is that as men we're being discriminated against by NOT having the opportunity to further our media profiles by being objectified.

I like it.

The real reason people are getting upset is probably just that no-one actually wants to look at semi-naked shots of hairy-arsed trad bumblies who break into a cold sweat at the thought of leading a vdiff without a triple set of camalots.

In reply to quadmyre:


Camalots? F*ck that! You need a set of hexes!

In reply to quadmyre:

The real reason people are getting upset is probably just that no-one actually wants to look at semi-naked shots of hairy-arsed trad bumblies who break into a cold sweat at the thought of leading a vdiff without a triple set of camalots.

Purely in the spirit of scientific investigation does anyone know where I can get 3 sets of camalots and a photographer with a strong stomach?

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC:

Sometimes you lot are so puritanical.

I see that and I think

- nails bouldering
- hot chick to.

Both are true. And, as a male, relevent.

In reply to Alyson:


I think it's arguable that a climber of either sex getting the cover shot of a mainstream magazine is newsworthy on a climbing site. The fact that she chose to be half-naked is more the issue. UKC did not report about her being in her underwear - they reported that she was on the cover of a magazine. If she had chosen a more circumspect shot for the cover, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Personally, I couldn't care less either way, but I do think if you're criticising the UKC hierarchy you should be criticising her as well.

As an aside, the standard of the piece about her bouldering is rubbish!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


Not disagreeing with that Mick, but does it count as climbing news?

If Home and Garden magazine did a profile of her house, would you run that as a story on here? It would be as relevant to climbing as this 'glamorous cover shoot' is.

In reply to ClimberEd:



Hot chick to what?

In reply to Alan James - UKC: I think some peeps need to chill, this is not a photo taken without her knowledge, its a promo shot, as was the vid in the other article...I ask you which is more revealing...that or this..
http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=318
Did it cause the same reaction? Uproar about photos of blokes bouldering with no tops and skimpy shorts next, lol

In reply to Björn Pohl - UKC:

I don't understand why we have to separate women who are considered to be attractive from women who are athletically talented. I think the promotion of an athletic body as a desirable one is a really positive and healthy thing and a good thing for women to aspire to. It seems it's acceptable for women to enjoy looking at what being an elite athlete does to a guy's body but that suddenly becomes unacceptable the other way around. Is it that guys feel more comfortable treating as sex objects women who aren't likely to outclimb or outwit them?

Funny enough tho, if you've seen alex boulder in some comps, she pretty much wears the same clothes as she is wearing in the front cover...She's a hot climber and Chris Sharma is a hot climber and i have man love for him I share with my wife! haha

In reply to TeaGirl:
It's neither unacceptable nor acceptable, that's entirely up to the person viewing the article. Some people think hard-core porn is acceptable (it's not illegal).
Your missing the point. The point being made by myself and a few others relates to what constitutes relevant information in an article about a climber, and perceived differences of consistency in the treatment of male and female climbers in media articles. It's totally academic really as I honestly don't care how much of the lovely Puccio's body ukc decide to show in their articles, I'd happily see her bouldering naked if that's what she wanted to do and was cool with other people publicising it.
If you take a look around UKB (hint, in DFBWGC poll at bottom) you'd get a better idea of the context behind my probing, and maybe question alan and mick of ukc a bit more yourself.