UKC

The International Olympic Committee Executive Board (EB) have announced that Sport Climbing is one of a handful of sports to be considered for the 2020 Olympics.

One sport from the eight candidates will be chosen for the 2020 games.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62924

In reply to UKC News:

Could be good news if well managed (a big if?)

The big question though is how the random 's' keeps appearing to pluralise the sport? I know that many have informally (and wrongly by any logical reasoning) called it 'sports climbing' rather than 'sport climbing', but if the IFSC are clear on the name how did the IOC end up using the wrong version?

In reply to UKC News: Excellent, I need to get in training! 6c should be enough to land me firmly in the medals!

In all seriousness, I think this could be a great thing for the sport, if like John said, it is managed correctly. The increased mainstream media coverage will mean that the athletes can earn a wage more proportionate to there levels of skill and fitness, and the time they put into their sport.

I just remember when climbing was part of the X-games back when it first began, and it was more of a side-line freakshow, and did nothing to make me interested in the sport. However I seem to remember the emphasis was more on speed climbing and not on sheer difficulty.

In reply to UKC News: Oh god I hope not.

Interesting to see if climbing makes it among these: baseball, karate, roller sports, softball, sports climbing, squash, wakeboard and wushu.

I personally think climbing deserves a spot compared to, roller sports, softball, wakeboard and wushu. Not sure if baseball is international enough, its like states vs japan.


Squash probs be the winner though, or Karate.

In reply to UKC News:

Are we sure this has not ben proposed before...I seem to remember it from the dim and distant. Was it an 'exhibition sport' at a previous games?

In reply to Scarab: what are "roller sports" anyway, anything related to rollerbaldes or what

In reply to thermal_t:

Thanks. With this sentence you have just reminded me why I hope climbing never ever becomes an Olympic sport. So much for the Olympic ideal.

In reply to john arran:

I blame Gary Gibson: http://www.sportsclimbs.co.uk/

=D

In reply to UKC News:

Squash will get it, hands down. Thank god! If climbing becomes an Olympic sport and a Briton wins a medal in it, you'll have to que (sp?) for days to get on routes!

In reply to thermal_t:


This won't benefit any climbers apart from half a dozen or so who'd rather spend their time couped up in a climbing wall than out on real rock and who might earn a bit of cash so they don't have to get a real job. Plus a few hangers on who can walk about with clip boards feeling important and avoiding a real job if they're lucky.

For the rest of us it just means more crowds, more queues, more erosion, more polish, more litter, more media distortion of what real climbing is actually about and more peolpe entering the sport with an attitude which is anathema to most of us.

In reply to pec:

In fact, climbing is the only one of those sports that will suffer from more people taking it up. I'm perfectly happy with climbing being under the radar.

In reply to UKC News: I think it is about time that squash got it to be fair. It's a bit of a joke that it isn't in the games already. It is in the commonwealth games and has been short listed for years, always just missing out.

In reply to UKC News:
I'll say what I always say when this kind of thread pops up.


Have you seen what it did to snowboarding?

In reply to pec:

You mean like the Slovenians & the Finn who came over to compete at the CWIF in March and had a great time at Stanage and Black Rocks.

Or the Swedes who competed at the World Cup in Sheffield at the weekend and then squeezed in a morning on grit before flying home.

Or like Caroline Civaldini (E8 ground up). Or Jorg Verhoeven (on sight of Stawberries)

The mantra of comp climbers aren't real climbers has been disproved many times.

In reply to Dave 88:

I hope so, it's a proper sport.

In reply to pec: I think your forgetting that most of the best compatishon climbers are the one's bagging 9as and 9bs out doors.
Also more crowds, more queues, more erosion, more polish. All theas things are made by people going to the crag to climb so your saing that climbing being an unpolular sport is a good thing? And the media atenshon is also a good thing your alwas going to get a distortid verson but climbers will always try there best to make shoor that the real part of the sport is shone which will be benafishal to the sport making it more popular.

In reply to Ross Kirkland:

I take it your spelling is a deliberate 'joke' - in other words, you're a troll? For once, I find myself really hoping this is a troll.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


There's nothing stopping them doing all that climbing whether they take part in competitions or not. Nor am I suggesting that they aren't good (somebody else's point not yours) or real climbers. Of course they are real climbers, but that doesn't make the competitions they take part in real climbing.
My point is that Olympic status will be detrimental to the vast majority of climbers and beneficial to onlt a small handful.

In reply to pec:

"My point is that Olympic status will be detrimental to the vast majority of climbers and beneficial to onlt a small handful".

If it means more, bigger and better climbing walls to accommodate these extra new climbers then yes it will be beneficial.

In reply to MJ:


Will that also mean more, bigger and better crags?
I suspect not.

In reply to pec: Don't worry, not many of a new breed of strong young comp climbers will get in your way on some grotty VS you want to do.

In reply to pec:

Will it mean hordes more people at the Cromlech?
I suspect not as the huge increase in 'climbers' brough about by the explosion of climbing walls hasn't led to hordes on most of our crags.

In reply to pec:

How many of these new climbers do you think will progress from the walls to outdoors?
Are you expecting vast hoardes of them?

There might be a blip for a short time straight after the Olympics, but people will soon move onto the next new fad sport/pastime/hobby etc.
Bit like skateboards in the eighties and the way people play tennis during Wimbledon.

I find it odd that people who are passionate about climbing, and who recognise what an amazing and rewarding experience it is, are so desperate to keep it a secret. It almost bears resemblance to those people who like a certain band because no-one knows about them, then stop listening to them once they're popular.

Also why should you,I, or anyone else get to decide that there are to many people interested in climbing, what if you'd missed out on climbing because someone somewhere decided not to publicise it?

In reply to UKC News: anyone else not agree that climbing is a better thing for the great amount of variety it has? so whats all the fuss about one of the many aspects of climbing, competition climbing, reaching what is in many ways the most respected and widely appreciated forms it could...?

In reply to UKC News: Cool but we are bit f*cked on the drugs testing though!

In reply to Ross Kirkland:

Yes that's exactly what he's saying.

Can you explain to me what benefit an increase in the popularity of rock climbing would have for the average rock climber, or 99% of rock climbers in fact?

I don't even regard it as a sport. It's something I do when I'm in the outdoors.

In reply to Removed User: has anyone else looked selflessly beyond the benefits to ourselves as rock climbers at the moment but to the benefit it could have to anyone starting out climbing? who wouldnt want everyone and anyone to have as much fun climbing as they do?

In reply to UKC News: I don't like the idea at all. Climbing is not a good spectator sport even for those of us who take part.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Climbing (as I guess you know it) isn't on the short list. Climbing on man made walls and climbs in a structured and organised way is on the short list. They are very different although with many crossovers.

In a similar vain watching me skiing is totally dull (except for the comedy moments) whereas watching Franz Klammer was absolutley brilliant.

Plus climbing can be a good spectator sport as Sir Christmas Bonus acknowledged after the 1st ever World Cup back in 1989 in Leeds.

In reply to Removed User:


Assuming you mean 'increased popularity due to inclusion in the olympics', it could well lead to an improved access situation, and would almost certainly mean a large increase in funding for bodies such as the BMC.

In reply to G Alderson: Ross has very minor learning difficulties, is an ace indoor and outdoor climber and a great coach to many kids. I hope you are proud of your thoughtless prejudice. Ross and people like him are the future; you're the past.

In reply to allymar: I think that you meant to reply to Gordon and not to me.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I disagree. Watching top climbers (on TV?) would be a great thing!

In reply to Darron:

yep barcelona.

i dont know how connected it ever was but in a gap in some high profile event like sprints or somesuch they flashed to wolfgang gullich yanking a one finger pullup over an over hang to win the mens - handle bar mo, lycra, pastel coloured gear and all - and bang! climbing started the rise to popularity from weirdo fringe sport to, er, whatever it now is.

i wouldnt worry too much: even if it gets in, theres no sponsors big enough to take on the air time to get it much play - what, petzls gonna out-bid nike?
it will be a dead-spot contender taking turns with things like archery, shooting and badminton.

and good luck gettin chris sharma past a drug test : )

In reply to ice.solo:


I think you underestimate the power of a potential gold medal on TV coverage. Certainly if no Brits are ranked very high or likely medal winners that would be the case, but a British gold medal performance in climbing would get wall to wall coverage in the UK.

In reply to UKC News:

"The sports are: baseball, karate, roller sports, softball, sports climbing, squash, wakeboard and wushu, one of which could be added to the 2020 sports programme"

If only one sport is allowed then I suspect climbing will miss out, since squash has to be the hot favourite

Baseball and softball lack international appeal and are team sports, thus putting extra demands on housing without bringing much in

Karate and Wushu should be discarded since there is already Judo, Tae-kwondo, Boxing and Wrestling. All these rely heavily on arbitary judging, which is makes it difficult for the casual viewer as well as being open to dubious influence.

Presumably wakeboarding would also involve such judging - it's not going to down to who can go fastest is it ! I've no idea what form of competion is involved in roller-sports, but hopefully it's down to speed and not artistic impression. Are you allowed the use of dogs ? Are headphones compulsary ?

Climbing is pretty easy to understand and follow. More importantly it does fit neatly in the "Fastest, Highest, Strongest" principle - I wish the IOC would note the lack of "most artistic" or "most stylish" is that definition and drop any events which require subjective judging.

However with the IOC doesn't always act rationally - how the Kieran survives in cycling is anyone guess - so it will probably come done to who gives it the biggest bung.

How are the Climbing Work's coffers these day Graeme ?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Really, Stanage, Frogatt, Shepherd's, The Cromlech etc not busy? Perhaps you can get out midweek but they're pretty rammed on a fine weekend, more so than when I started 25 years ago.

In reply to Ross Kirkland:
Wisest words I've read all thread. I climb in comps as a means to improve outside. The two are fundamentally linked. As far as I'm concerned, it'll be brilliant!

In reply to xican: and grady

The barriers to climbing are less than they've ever been. If people still haven't got what it takes to get involved you have to wonder if they've got what it takes to make in a game in which self reliance is fundamental to survival.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Its not them I'm worried about, they're all indoors anyway, and what makes you think I have a predeliction for grotty VS's anyway?

In reply to remus:


Yes, more crowds, more erosion, more noise, more litter, that will be great for access


And that will keep the men with the clipboards happy

In reply to UKC News:

Think indoor sport climbing in the Olympics would lead to better training facilities for us all and more sports science to help us all improve. Better support for our top level climbers (as it is they are hopelessly undersupported compared to Austria and other nations). Better knowledge of and treatment for climbing injuries.

It probably would lead to more overcrowding at climbing walls until they can develop into bigger and better facilities. Not sure there'd be a direct link to more people at crags.

In reply to RockSteady:

..... and more bolted crags (or gasp....Retro bolted)

In reply to UKC News:

fantastic (if it gets voted in)

It may suprise you that climbing is more than" something to do when your outdoors" to most climbers...its not about personal preference. Its about making it widely appreciated and recognised and,improving facilities,tech and research, in all, that can only be a good thing.

Having read this thread most veteran users seem to be incredibly ignorant to other people's views. considering the experience,If your worried about places becoming busy(that will take a while anyway..looking at our health and safety culture) why dont you take the initiative and lay down your own training routes and maybe even discover some new ones....

In reply to UKC News: Random drug tests anyone?

In reply to Robert Durran:

My earlier post was, I admit, a knee-jerk reaction to "thermal-t's" horrible viewpoint!

I think that the criterion for whether a sport should be in the Olympics should be that winning the gold medal is seen as the pinnacle of achievement in that sport and therefore an aim for which much else, including financial gain, would be sacrificed (obviously this should immediately exclude the joke of having football and tennis etc. - their presence only serves to devalue the true Olympic sports). If indoor climbing can be seen as a "sport" separate from "real" climbing (and it probably can be) and Olympic Gold was seen as the ultimate goal of competition climbers, then it would probably be fair enough to have it in the Olympics.

In reply to Dannywallcrawler:
Why is it a good thing? What is it about climbing that needs improving?


What does the health and safety culture have to do with this issue?

In reply to Robert Durran: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Olympics ceased to be an 'amateur' sport about 4 decades ago. All the athletes who compete are professional, and the top one's get paid a kings ransom just for turning up.

Today's athletes have got there eyes as much on the financial gain that comes with a gold medal, as anything else.

In reply to Goucho: Are you sure athletes get paid appearance money for the Olympics?

In reply to pec: When you're busy slagging off men in clipboards, it might be worth realising, that it's thanks to organisations like the BMC, that you still have the freedom to climb at many crags.

And if you need a list of crags where you will hardly ever see another soul, and which offer fabulous climbing, let me know, I can give you a list so long, you'll have been dead for years before you even manage to visit half of them.

In reply to john arran: What, like sailing?

We produced five medals from the Sydney Olympic Regatta in 2000 and six from Qingdao, China in 2008, including four gold medals.

Whilst there was coverage in the UK I would hardly have called it wall to wall.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: I think so, but it's kept under the radar (I could be wrong though?). But they do get appearance fees for the vast majority of the others.

But lets put it like this. After Kelly Holmes won her double gold, she made over a million in the next 3 months via TV commercials, appearances etc.

In reply to Goucho:

I don't think this is true.


I would very much like to think this is not entirely true - indeed the gold medal contenders in the big money sports (by no means all sports) are probably already pretty loaded and would probably swap a lot money for a gold medal.

In reply to Robert Durran: How did they get loaded in the first place? - appearance money, sponsorship and endorsement deals etc.

Usain Bolt gets a six figure fee just for turning up at a race.

In reply to Goucho:

But not at the Olympics.

In reply to tony: It's called 'expenses' at the Olympics.

In reply to Goucho:

I am not disputing that many events pay appearance money or that winning a gold medal (or any medal) will make the athlete a lot of money.

I would dispute that they get paid appearance money or even expenses at the Olympics. Their flights etc will of course be paid but thats different from what you are implying.

In reply to Goucho:


"Many crags"?

A few crags maybe.

So obviously a few people might make some money out of it but what's in it for 99.9% of climbers?

I haven't yet heard anything sensible suggested that benefits the hoi poloi.

In reply to Removed User: So you really don't think that better climbing walls will be of benefit to a significant numbers of climbers? Or better boots?

In reply to UKC News: what on earth is wushu and how can it be up to be an olympic game if I've never even heard of it? I suspect squash will take it as the rest are pretty daft sports, that said how are you effectively going to broadcast squash? At least climbing will have the advantage of massive falls and space for cameras out the back

In reply to Dannywallcrawler:



And your point is what exactly?
That some of us who've barely reached middle age are so old we've lost our critical faculties?
That since we've been climbing since before you were born we've forgotten what it was like to be young and know best?
That because we've climbed more routes than you've squeezed pimples means we're so jaded we can't remember a time when competition climbing didn't exist?

Experience would normally be considered to count in favour of ones judgement but your username and profile suggests you don't bring a lot of it to the debate.

I wouldn't normally have a dig at someone because of their youth and inexperience and of course, you're entitled to your opinions but try to justify them with rational argument not bigoted predjudice.

In reply to Goucho:

The BMC does indeed do some valuable work but sadly it has increasingly fallen prey to the committee disease, finding things that need doing. This is just another drain on its resources. Remind me again what the M stands for?

Thanks, but I make a point of visiting as many new (to me) crags as possible each year so I don't need any help in avoiding the crowds.
That doesn't mean that increasing pressure on the best crags is not a problem though.
Its ironic that as participation levels have rocketed in the last 20 years or so, the popular crags have got ever busier whilst many others remain in obscurity and not because of their quality.
Now if more climbers meant they spread themselves out a bit and kept the other crags free from vegetation it wouldn't be so bad but sadly that's not how it woks.

In reply to UKC News: Would be good if climbing became an olympic sport,it's not like climbing in general has much publicity in the uk,i bet if one of the GB team won the IFSC bouldering world cup it probably wouldnt be deemed news worthy.
Just because something becomes an olympic sport won't mean hordes of people taking it up,how many of us took up synchronised swimming because we saw it shown in the olympics??
So what if more people take the sport up?there'll be the ones who drop it after a few goes because it's not as easy as it looked/too much effort for little gain/etc and the ones that stick it,some doing it for the enjoyment-some in the hope of competing-so not much differnt from now?
Whats the issue with others getting the same enjoyment/relaxation/fullfilment/whatever the hell you get from climbing,as you?
Some of you are acting like climbing is a private club that only selective people should be allowed to join?

In reply to UKC News:
I think on a global scale it would be a positive development. Might spark countries throughout the world to improve local climbing resources.

In reply to Hannes:

wushu is chinese martial arts ('kung fu' technically is just one aspect of that), has been a competitive sport for decades. as a spectator sport personally id replace judo and tae kwondo with it, but that will never happen.

id love to see climbing at the olympics, but not sure it would get much airplay and am not about to sit thru hours of sports tv just for a glimpse.

In reply to UKC News: I am no expert in sport climbing but I do outdoor casually so I have a string interest. However, I aminvolved in Taekwondo at a high level. We have been on a shaky org with the IOC for years and been up for vote a few times. The ref getting kicked in the face (available on YouTube) in Beijing in 2008 and the horrendous judging at the same games have put us again in trouble. However the sport us being modernised to take out the subjective scoring and incorporating video replays.

When selecting sports the IOC lookat certain factors. Level of worldwide participation us a key one. The more countries that do the sport the better ( taekwondo is currently 9th of all sports in the world), the spread if medals ie if all medals go to one country it is not favourable. Cost to run (the reason equestrian is on a shaky peg). And spectator levels.

How climbing fits into all that, I am not sure

In reply to bungee316: Us hav string interest aslo, me fink fishin shud b in lympicks.

In reply to ice.solo:

In Chinese 'Wushu' literally means martial arts. Wu = martial. Shu = an art, a skill. 'Kung Fu' literally means 'accomplishment of skills'. It can be applied to anything from martial arts to the skill of carpentry. In Hong Kong the term 'Kung Fu' was widely adopted by the movie and comic industry for martial arts, that's why in the west 'Kung Fu' was understood as martial arts.

>has been a competitive sport for decades.
For thousands of years in fact.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Sorry wrote it on my phone should read:

I am no expert in sport climbing but I do outdoor casually so I have a strong interest. However, I am involved in Taekwondo at a high level. We have been on a shakey peg with the IOC for years and have been up for vote a few times. The ref getting kicked in the face (available on YouTube) in Beijing in 2008 and the horrendous judging at the same games have put us again, in trouble. However the sport is being modernised to take out the subjective scoring and incorporating video replays. We know all about what it takes to both be and to be kept as an Olympic Sport

When selecting sports the IOC look at certain factors. Level of worldwide participation is a key one. The more countries that do the sport the better ( taekwondo is currently 9th of all sports in the world), the spread of medals ie if all medals go to one country it is not favourable. Cost to run (the reason equestrian is on a shakey peg). And spectator levels.

How climbing fits into all that, I am not sure but effectively the more people it appeals to the better. Karate is a non-starter due to the political complexities within its sport. Wushu is primarily a Chinese thing and the other sports would all mainly be based around one or two countries. I actually think Climbing might have a shout as it would probably tick a lot of the boxes. However, I really would have to go along with the common theme that Squash looks the favourite

In reply to UKC News: Climbing, an Olympic sport? What a joke! File it along with synchronised swimming.

In reply to UKC News: Hopefully it wont happen

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I guess a number of things come to mind. One is that, having experience in both karate and climbing, I would say that karate is possibly more suited to being an Olympic sport. Competitions at all levels are very much a part of training in karate, whereas for climbers, competition, or indeed training in a competitive way, is optional. I'm not saying that climbing competitions aren't important or are unpopular, just that being competitive is much more a part of karate than of climbing as a whole. In an average karate class I would try to spar better than my partners, do my kata better than anyone in the room (though of course rarely, if ever, succeed). I think a lot of climbers, myself included, see climbing more as a personal competition, the chief thing being not whether you can climb better than your partner but whether you can climb better than you did last week.

On the other hand karate is not ideal either - there are many different forms of it practised in the UK, and they differ slightly, especially in the kata - I could see it being tricky to judge fairly between people trained in different forms, such as shogeki or shotokan.

I guess the last point is in response to the thought that this will bring publicity to climbing. Yes, it well, but publicity to a very specific type of climbing, and whilst people on this board may recognise the vast difference between indoor sport climbing and outdoor trad, non-climbers watching the Olympics might not necessarily realise this. Climbing should be an open sport, and personally I find it immensely enjoyable to introduce new people to something which has given me joy. On the other hand, it would sadden me to think that Olympic viewers had an image of 'climbing' as a sport simply limited to competition indoor climbing - and I personally wouldn't want to watch those competitions. Too little rock, wind, or natural light!

In reply to pec:

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of course there's nothing wrong with people who want to compete doing so but the reality is that Olympic status will raise this fringe activity to a whole new level of hoopla and will inevitably have a disproportionate effect on climbing as a whole. Some of the outcomes will not be welcomed by the majority as you so rightly point out.

We can't and shouldn't prevent people enjoying competition climbing if that is their thing but we ought to think about the wider repercussions for our sport. As an area chairman for the BMC I remain very concerned that the influx of government money that olympic status would bring would shift the focus and distort the activities of our representative body in ways that are inconsistent with the interests of the majority of BMC members. Just look at what the competition agenda has done to the British Canoe Union, a supposedly representative body that focuses on a tiny elite and which is broadly despised by many paddlers.

Its perhaps worth noting that when the principle of Olympic participation was raised by the BMC executive about 18 months ago the NW Area meeting twice formally resolved that this matter should be put to a ballot of the whole membership and was twice ignored by the BMC National Council. Don't be surprised therefore if the minority vested interest that is competition climbing and its commercial backers now again try to railroad us into supporting the Olympic bandwagon

In reply to colin struthers:

The inevitable change of focus that the BMC would have to undergo if climbing gained full Olympic status is precisely why I asked the BMC Competitions Committee to consider whether the BMC was the right body to oversea an Olympic Sport. I want climbing to be in the Olympics but at the same time I do not want the BMC to be a competition focussed organisation. Can the BMC perform both roles?? I don't know but I do know that the process of deciding needs to start now because in less than 2 years climbing might be a fully fledged Olympic sport and I am only too aware that 2 years in BMC Committee land is like the blinking of an eyelid.


Why should the membership have voted on the issue. NW was alone in asking for this so were in a minority.

The BMC is a member of 2 international organisations that require their membership to support the Olympic dream - the UIAA and the IFSC. Not fulfilling the membership requirements could have led to the expulsion of the BMC from both organisations. The UIAA got IOC recognition in 1993 so for the past 18 years the BMC had supported what the NW Area (and other Areas) were debating 18 months ago.

In reply to redsulike: I wonder how many BMC members were watching the Bouldering World Cup in Sheffield last weekend? A fair few, certainly far more than ever gather together under 1 roof (or tent in this instance) for any other event.

I suspect that the majority of the volunteers that were working for me are also BMC members. And the number of volunteers that help out at comps over the country far exceeds the number of volunteers that help out at any other BMC events or committees. Maybe that says something that you are not aware of - I know that when Lyndon Gill was told how many people help at comps he was astounded.

There was some oldish bloke at the World Cup at the weekend, he has apparently done a bit on grit, and in the Lake,s and in Wales and, well, everywhere really. He was hooting and a hollering (in a retrained Yorkshire way of course) all weekend long and saying how brilliant it was that climbing might be in the Olympics. I think his name was Charlton Somethingorother but he was the spit of a guy called Ron that I know.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


The other areas did not offer an opinion on whether there should be a ballot of the whole membership, oddly they were not asked, as you well know - hence the NW area were in no sense 'in a minority' and it is disingenous of you to suggest that they were.

The NW area has the largest membership of any BMC area and its members felt that the issue was of sufficient import for it to be decided by more than a few dozen people attending area meetings. The suggestion to put the matter to the whole membership was a democratic proposal.

The fact that it was sidelined by the BMC National Council had nothing to do with the supposed opinions of other areas (which were, as noted, not canvassed about whether there should be a national ballot). Rather it had, in my personal opinion, everything to do with the fact that within the BMC structure there is a significant pro competition lobby who absolutely did not want to hear the opinion of the great unwashed (ordinary members) because they knew fine well that there was a good chance that they would reject the idea of the BMC supporting Olympic participation. In short, the decision was an undemocratic stitch up.

Now that the olympic issue is back on the agenda it really is time that the BMC developed a policy that reflects the wishes of its membership. They cannot hope to do this if they don't ask the whole membership. This is something that the organisation is perfectly capable of doing.

Don't you agree?

In reply to colin struthers:
>

I was no longer an employee of the BMC by this stage so I do not know what was talked about at NC, I only know what was reported and have heard so I am not being disingenous here.


I was not at NC so don't know what went on but the fact that the NW is the largest constituency is totally irrelevant, they are a single constituency and therefore have the same voting rights as any other Area. I suggest that you are being disingenous now. And how many people were at the NW meeting that proposed the resolution. Again you are being disingenous.


Ordinary members do not have a voice on the NC or on the Exec, thats the 'democratic' make up of the BMC, it has been for years. If ordinary members want to get something debated then the AGM is the way to do it, as well you know.

Is the 'significant pro competition lobby' a majority ofn the Exec or the NC. If so thats BMC Democracy in action for you. I personally doubt that the likes of Dave Turnbull is remotely pro-comp although he is of course pro-Central funding but thats another issue.




Yes I agree that turning from a 'comps are part of what we do to comps are the main thing that we do' is a membership decision. But no I don't agree that the organisation (without significant changes) is capable of managing this change.

But it is great that a NC member is starting the process. One way or the other the British Olympic Associatin is going to come knocking on the door of the office in Didsbury long before the IOC Congress in Beunos Aires in 2013 and the BMC needs to be ready, one way or the other, to respond. It is not ready at the moment and the BMC needs to accelerate its internal process on this issue.

In reply to john arran:

Sports climbing is clipping bolts in the Peaks

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry, not sure what you are saying here - do you really think that a heirarchy based on a relatively poorly attended local committee structure produces a more representative and democratic outcome than a one member one vote ballot?

The BMC could easily (as officers of the BMC have acknowledged to me) ask all its members if they want it to support climbing as an olympic sport.

Why wouldn't you want this to happen I wonder?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the BMC has 70,000+ members who, in the absence of any contrary evidence, can be claimed as supporters of olympic climbing competitions. This is a helpfully big number when you are making the case to the IoC (who include participation levels as a key criteria in assessing proposed new olympic sports)

Would 70,000 be bigger than the actual number of people regularly competing in climbing comps in the uk, I wonder?

In reply to colin struthers: Colin you have just demonstrated to me why the BMC is not capable of running an Olympic Sport. Thanks. Bring on the membership vote.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Ps Colin, please ensure that Rab reads this.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

These haven't changed the average grade of 95% of the punters over the last 20 years, so no.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Why? Do you think he doesn't know my personal opinions on the subject?

More pertinently though, perhaps you should ensure that those you are trying to persuade to accept competition climbing as an olympic sport also read this thread.

I would maintain that the BMC was bounced into accepting the principle of Olympic climbing by a minority of enthusiasts supported by a larger group of vested interests who fairly cynically manipulated the BMCs unfortunately not very democratic local structures.

The Olympics administrators might be surprised to learn that a quite significant body of opinion (possibly a majority)amongst uk climbers thinks that olympic climbing sucks as a concept.

Oh, and it might also be news to them that the number of actual regular competition participants is in the low hundreds rather than the thousands.

In reply to UKC News: I posted some anti olympic comments above as I believe the profile of competition climbing, raised as it could be by olympic stauts, would be damaging the the wider sport and I also find competitions to be anathema to the values I hold dear in climbing.

That said, if people want to compete that's up to them, its the olympic status I object to and I do not want the representative body being distorted in such an unrepresentative way. I have for some time felt that the BMC does too many things, many of which simply do not need to be done and this was a step too far and so allowed my membership to lapse.

I think it would be more appropriate for another body to take over competitions and perhaps take a few related matters of the BMC's hands.

As a matter of interest therefore, what would the consequences be if the BMC were kicked out of the UIAA? Would it actually have any bearing on its core business (access, bolt funds, guidebook production etc) and would it necessarily be kicked out anyway, especially if another body dealt with competitions?
I'm genuinely curious.

Bloody hell there's some grumpy folk on this thread!

Dead right again. It might please you to know that there are many voices within the BMC, myself included, who think this is exactly what should happen

In reply to UKC News:

Sounds like a crap idea. Indoor walls have already stolen all my friends, this would probably draw the last of the loyal hounds to that same fate.

In reply to john arran:

Please sir, I posted a lighthearted comment...

In reply to colin struthers:
The issue was neither ignored nor sidelined by the National Council, it was debated quite extensively. And whilst I can't comment on the discussions in the NW or other areas, but it was discussed at a couple of peak area meetings, and there was certainly no call for a referendum. Actually the mood in the peak was that they weren't particularly bothered - apart from a couple of people who had very strong opinions.

The NW rep on the NC did propose a referendum, and I and a number of reps from other areas opposed the idea. Sorry, but that's democracy for you - we were all representing the views from our areas and the NW was out of step with the general mood.

But another aspect of democracy, which I feel very strongly about, is that you should pick a NC rep who you, as an area meeting, trust. And then let them investigate, consider and reach a conclusion. Obviously they should be getting a steer from the area meeting, and feeding back to it, but they are your representatives, not delegates. Furthermore they should have the courage to make tricky decisions - if you don't trust them, find someone better!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The Moors were opposed to it too.

In reply to UKC News:
Wow! Yes there are! You're never going to please everyone, as you never can. Personally as a competition climber and a member of the British Bouldering Team this is amazing news and so far from who I've heard from, other team members agree. This is a massive step forward for the sport we do and competition climbing still has a lot of room to evolve in many ways from, support to teams and younger aspiring climbers, better facilities, more knowledge about the sport and everything that goes with it. I'm very excited for this to happen. The potential of the British team is higher and is only continuing to get higher with younger guns coming through.

It's a guess but most people posting on this forum probably don't compete in climbing and just do it as a hobby. If this be the case then I don't think they fully understand what it means for competition climbing to be an Olympic hopeful as they are not involved. Competition climbing is very different from outdoor climbing as everyone knows very well and for me, they're two separate things, both of which I enjoy, so I can see from both sides of the party.

For the people who aren't supporting this idea, well..... Its a shame to feel your not fully supported by your won country. But there are plenty that are so lets hope the comps that have gone by and coverage and support so far, will convince the people that need convincing to put climbing in the Olympics.

Your British Champion, 2009 and 2010.

In reply to leahc:

That's all well and good, but aren't you a little worried that this will lead to a greater emphasis on competition climbing and as a result a lack of people getting out developing crags, exploring and keeping them clean?

This can already be seen with areas like The Lakes, Moors and basically all the un-trendy crags going back to the wild.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
You may be right that the Bmc is not capable of running an Olympic team as well as it's other, more important duties, but I don't think we should be hasty in splitting up the Bmc.

Yes we have the oft -quoted example of the BCU, but forewarned is forearmed

Yes these things take time to get going, and yes we know how slow Bmc committees move, but splitting up the Bmc before climbing is even in the Olympics would be silly, it's still very unlikely to happen and without the Olympics could a comp climbing body really stand on it's own? It's hard enough getting sponsors as it is.

But mainly, it's not really in a climbers pysche to admit defeat without even trying is it? Who knows, the Bmc has lots of knowledgeable and willing people it can call on for assistance, it might not make a hash of it. Hey, it's cycling team isn't doing to badly in the tdf

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Well this one wasn't, but that joke only works if you know my surname!

Btw - one minute we have people complaining that climbing in the Olympics will make the sport too popular and lead to polished routes, and then we have complaints that comp/indoor climbers should get outdoors more. Which is it, I get confused.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
There a few who do competitions and a vast amount who climb outdoors. People who want to go and climb at the crags will and people who want to compete will compete. Time moves on and changes happen. Some crags might get forgotten, but maybe that's to do with their quality etc. I don't see anyone forgetting about Burbage, Stanage, Llanberris etc.
People are going to do the things that enjoy most in climbing. Yes there's a divide between outdoor climbers and comp climbers but every comp climber I know competes because they like the competition side of things and most are good at it but they also prefer to climb outside and compete as something extra and to represent their country. I'm proud to represent this country and I'm no where near as good as I need to be right now but hopefully with a move towards the Olympics, more support and training can be given.
One area of the sport given interest, doesn't turn it into a popularity contest.

It's not really the subject of the thread but you raise an interesting point about the role of BMC area representatives on the BMC National Council. This is probably very boring to most folks but here's my six-pennyworth:

I attend NC to represent the members of the BMC in the NW and that, to me, means speaking on subjects in accordance with what I think local members want.

Of course I have my own opinions and sometimes I express these at the local area meeting and, inevitably, also at NC when the subject is one that has not been discussed by the NW area meeting.

However, if the area decides one thing and I disagree then I absolutely think that it is my job to speak for the members, not myself. To paraphrase your comment - if I don't trust the members then I should find someone better to represent.

That's democracy

In reply to leahc:

Exactly. The honey pot crags will become more popular as people really start to believe that Stanage is the best crag in the world, whilst the huge inspiring swathes of rock in the lakes and Scotland become thick in lichen and no one can climb them anymore.

It's easy to say 'people will do what they want to do', but ultimately a 'representative' body, like the BMC, supporting climbing being in the Olympics, is inevitably going to lead in increased popularity of indoor, sport and easily accessible bouldering and ultimately change the make up of climbing and climbers in the UK. To adopt some liassez faire attitude to effectively clean your hands of any knock-on future events events of supporting a bid of climbing being part of the Olympics is just naive.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The worst of both world- the peak turns to glass and everywhere else is left to flora.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
I'm not cleaning my hands of any knock on effects of the Olympics, but I'm a competition climber, therefore I'm pro comp climbing. Your an outdoor climber therefore pro outdoor climbing. We want the best for our chosen part of climbing but I honestly don't think that putting climbing in the Olympics is going to effect outdoor 'that' much. Its promoting competition climbing.
Having asked a bunch of people in the climbing works if they had ever been climbing outside, yes some people said yes but a surprising amount said no. You go to London, some people don't even know what the peak district looks like. They only climb indoors

In reply to Franco Cookson: Just a guess, but i dont think the sort of people who regularly discover, clean and develop crags are the same people who compete regularly.

Furthermore i really dont think it matters if crags fall out of favour. Given time they'll come back in vogue and someone will have a lot of fun cleaning them up and reclimbing loads of old, awesome lines.

In reply to UKC News:

hard to worry about it becoming a deluge of newbies taking over the crags.

millions (tens of millions?) watch the sprints, swimming and marathon and dont flood the world having a go - and they are much more accessible sports than climbing.

i dont doubt there would be a noticeable surge at walls IF climbing were even broadcast and IF a good looking brit won something (chances of that..?). but hard to see it going further.

i actually wonder who would even watch it.
it will get very little airtime and aside from climbers its not that interesting to watch, especially for a public with marginal knowledge of it.
i found syncronised swimming mind numbing till i met a girl into it who explained it to me - now i can cope with about 15mins (not scared to defend it, its actually pretty cool. try holding your breath and doing strenuous gymnastics inverted and in sync with 3 others.....more demanding a sport than many others i reckon).

some will watch it, some will try it, few will hand over $500 just for the basic gear.

dont worry.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

...just to confirm that the BMC (and me personally) support the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport. I met with the Parliamentary Mountaineering Group 2 days ago, explained the IOC's recent announcement and asked how they could help our cause. They got quite fired up and will I believe do whatever they can to help. We've fixed up a reception of the British Climbing Team with Hugh Robertson (the Sports Minister, who has done a bit of climbing) for autumn and that will provide a great opportunity to promote our case and and encourage support. Influencing the IOC and its members will be the key however so we need a big think about how best to go about this. At a Sport England conference last year I spoke to guy called Mike Lee who was the lead consultant for the UK 2012 and Brazil 2016 Olympic bids - I asked how we should go about making a case for climbing as an Olympic sport and his first reaction was, 'how much money do you have'. Making the case will require a major effort - not just from the BMC but from the wider outdoor (and indoor) community, but for a one-off opportunity like this I think we've got to make a go of it.

I found this whole thread quite depressing. I think it's great news. If any of the young hotshots at my local wall could make it, that would be so inspirational. It just seems a shame that we can't support these people because of doom and gloom speculations of what happens outside. Of course what happens to our crags is phenomenally important. But, nothing that I read in this thread suggested that any of the forecasts (polish, empty crags, busy crags, increased bolting) really had any factual basis. So what if people want to climb inside? So what if the public thinks that climbing is all about indoors? I get the impression that people fear change. How terribly conservative.

And when/if it happens - Good Luck to the British and Finnish teams.

In reply to remus:

A bad guess as it turns out. For example, Ned Feehally, current British champ is one of the most active developers of new bouldering and new crags in the Peak District.

I think it's possible to overstate the effect that Olympic status would have on outdoor climbing. For one thing, I think that demographic changes already underway mean that increasing numbers of young climbers have a focus on indoor climbing and competitions, and very many have never thought of climbing outside. My guess is that Olympic status will increase this demographic, which is going to be a part of climbing's future regardless.

Are there potential benefits to outdoor climbing? For example will any of the Olympic money trickle thru the BMC and into access work, etc?

The way I see it we could (again) do one of 2 things:

1) Embrace this new opportunity and manage the change just as we have ultimately embraced and managed the introduction of sport climbing, climbing walls, comps, headpointing, DWS, big-wall free climbing, dry-tooling, etc., recognising that the climbing world is better off for the diversity despite some of these developments having needed careful management.

2) Continue reading the Daily Mail, believing there's a big bad scary world out there and we should isolate ourselves from it all and pretend that time might stay still if we close our eyes for long enough.

I say good luck to those who have a chance of competing. I'm jealous!
I say good luck to those who relish the though of watching it live or on telly. I'll be one of you.
I also say good luck to those who will choose to spend the same time out on the crags. Have a great climb!

In reply to Franco Cookson: The Moors is not a BMC Area.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No do I but we need to be hasty in having the debate and if the decision is for the BMC to continue dealing with comps then plans need to be put in place.

The current timetable is CompsCom in September then maybe NC in December so 6 months gone before the debate has even started.

In reply to midgets of the world unite: got any more examples? Ned's a good example, but i had a quick browse through the rest of the british bouldering team and no other names jump out at me as particularly keen developers, though admittedly im not very familiar with a lot of them.

More generally, my point was that i think the overlap between 'people who climb competitively at a high level' and 'people who go out and clean crags' is pretty small, so any increase in the former due to inclusion in the olympics is unlikely to lead to a decrease in the latter.

In reply to remus: Hows about Karin Magog and Steve Crowe. They are not currently competing but they did for years and have cleaned many crags - I remember them re cleaning parts of Raven Crag Thirlmere a few years back.

And hasn't Andy Earl done a bit of development in the County.

And I believe that the Asturian Vets Boulder Champion has been developing trad sandstone in Spain

In reply to remus:

The point is those who clean unpopular crags and develop new ones are a small fraction of climbers in general. Most climbers do not do such things. The fact that I can even find one amongst the UK comp team suggests that comp climbers are no less likely to contribute to climbing in this manner than anyone else.

Gaz parry would be another good example of an active comp climber with a strong development track record. Two climbers from ~30. I might suggest that comp climbers are *more* likely to do this kind of thing than the average guy on the street.

Then, if you consider former comp climbers, there's Leo, Adam Hocking, Chris Savage, etc, etc

In reply to colin struthers:


Not sure where you get that information from - I'm pretty sure that over 40% of BMC members live in London and the South East, whilst Wales and the Peak tend to have the highest average attendence at area meetings (and of course 99% of serious climbers live in Sheffield).

I've now remembered that I wasn't able to attend the NC meeting where the decision was taken, but in fact the votes taken at area meetings were tallied up.

"211 For, 10 Against and 33 Abstain - in favour of the idea of Competition Climbing becoming an Olympic sport.

With the proviso that competitions must be conducted on artificial structures (rather than on outdoor crags), National Council unanimously agreed to support the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport."

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

But last time I heard the North East was struggling to get anyone to stand for National Council.

OK it looks like they now have a replacement for Al Hinkes in Lloyd Murray, but that still leaves a vacancy.

Franco - step forward and put your head in the noose !

In reply to Chris the Tall: I wonder how many people were at the NW Area meeting when they decided "that the issue was of sufficient import for it to be decided by more than a few dozen people attending area meetings". Judging by the numbers voting I would say a maximum of 10, maybe more but they obviously voted yes or abstained.

Kind of ironic really.

I can't see climbing being any Olympic sport having any positive effects on my (middle-grade sport and trad.) climbing, whatever climbing wall owner and former "BMC's climbing walls and competition guru" Graeme Alderson may say. Better shoes? - is that really the best you can manage? I can think of plenty of potential negative effects. This isn't being grumpy John Arran, it is genuine and heartfelt concern.


In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:


I do not support the BMC spending money (my membership fees) lobbying for climbing to be included in the Olympics. I want this money to be spent on access and conservation, safety testing, and guidebooks - activities that will benefit me directly, not some tiny elite. We have recently seen Summit taken down-market <insert your favourite smiley symbol here> because it was perceived as catering largely for middle-grade and harder rock-climbers and didn't reflect the large hillwalking/scrambling/easy mountaineering contingent. What will lobbying for climbing in the Olympics do for these people?

In reply to flaneur: People asked for examples of what will improve. I gave one, well 2 actually as I also mentioned better walls.

So here is a short list:
Improved equipment
Improved training facilities
Improved climbing related sports medicine
Improved coaching (which is not just for the elite as anyone who does our Adult Improver sessions will testify)


Graeme 'Mid grade climber who used to climb in EB's and remembers the dramatic effect that Fires had on his own climbing and wonders if there is a similar improvement around the corner' Alderson

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I'm happy to represent my area, but my area isn't the north east. I bet the peak district isn't short of reps, the Moors is as large.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

So let's do a rundown of pros and cons, shall we?

Pros:

-Improved equipment. (I don't see how that'll happen, i don't think current companies are particularly slacking in their R&D, unless you are expecting Nike and Nasa to join together to do some magic)

-Improved training facilities (For the 10(?) members of the British Team.)

-Improved climbing related sports medicine (This one is definitely a plus, but i don't think inclusion in the IOC will do as much)

-Improved coaching (I'll rephrase your point for you "which will be free/paid for by BMC members just for the elite, and anyone who does our Adult Improver sessions will cough up for it from their own pockets just as they are doing now")

Cons:

-Massification of current climbing walls (And let's not forget climbing walls are private enterprises, so it's not like the government/BMC will provide more/better public walls. And the added benefit that a private enterprise's reaction to a high demand that cannot be accommodated by supply is to increase prices.)

-Massification of popular accessible crags with the clear repercussion of increased polish, erosion, litter, parking problems, access issues.)

-Change of focus from climbing as a way of life/hobby/enjoyable pastime into a competitive 'sport'.

-Price increase of equipment and training facilities. (Because brands and shops will charge as much as people is willing to pay. The more participants (and more affluent, as the kind Olympic status would bring), the higher the prices.)

-Redirection of BMC resources.

So where do you think your average Joe HVS climber stands to benefit from this?
And don't you think since the BMC is "the representative body that exists to protect the freedoms and promote the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers, including ski-mountaineers" should take note looking at the above that a very small and selective minority stands to benefit while the vast majority of UK climbers stand to loose?

In reply to TheAvenger:


Nice of you to ignore the point that improved coaching knowledge will be available and just focus on the negative. I never said that coaching would be free - even though we don't charge for our Adult Improver sessions.

>(And let's not forget climbing walls are private enterprises, so it's not like the government/BMC will provide more/better public walls

Really. Is Ratho a private enterprise? Westview? Westway? Mile End.

Going back to Ratho, the sole reason Ratho still exists is because of competitions. I think that the normal climbers in the central belt benefit greatly from Ratho don't you.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


And do you think inclusion of climbing in the IOC will make these venues any cheaper and more accessible? Will it make them any bigger? Will the panels grow higher and the walls expand? Or will they just get busier, which will make them worse training facilities rather than better, and be answered by a price hike and possibly discounts at the times no worker/student can attend?

In reply to TheAvenger:
One possible unlooked for consequence of inclusion, which no-one seems to have picked up, is the potential, if media and 'the masses' become interested, for the arrival of the H&S Police into our sport (& not just indoors). Non climbers are generally incredulous at the lack of constraints on climbing - 'you mean, you don't have to book/get a permit/undergo approved training/etc.?' which we take for granted. We would really need a cordon sanitaire around the IOC aspect of this if it happens.

In reply to TheAvenger: First you state that all walls are privately run enterprises, I give you examples of walls that are publicly or charity owned. Now you change your argument. Excellent.

But yes, I believe that the walls that I have listed will continue to increase their facilities. Why do I think this, well because all of these walls have improved their facilities over the years, some of them a number of times.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Can you give me an estimate of the proportion of privately owned to charity run walls?
Regardless, the argument is the same and i haven't changed it. That is, if the Walls can get away with charging more they will.


And they managed to increase their facilities even with climbing not being an Olympic sport? Whoa, i'm impressed. maybe you should let the BMC know that is possible... Still, the majority of walls have already maximised the space, so there's no room for expansion in most cases. It seems you are still lobbying for a minority.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Comment above is tongue in cheek and not malicious sarcasm BTW...

In reply to UKC News: i'll be happy if it does get in because by that time i would be 25 and hopfully competing in it.

In reply to Removed User: I'd hope that increased exposure = increased public interest = increased public spending (probably at indoor walls) = increased number of indoor walls.
I love climbing outdoors but admit that most of my climbing is restricted to mediocre, humid indoor walls.
What I wouldn't give for access to a massively tall, custom built, air conditioned indoor wall with a bouldering area as big as fontainebleau and enough changing rooms and showers for everyone.

In reply to Azrael:

Hmm, follow the logic...
If Olympic status creates more demand, then there are likely to be more walls. But why do you think they would be any better? "Economies of scale" don't help much here. Given that currently walls don't make massive profits, the only way they could provide significantly better facilities is by charging significantly more. So with more participants we *may* get a few fancier walls, but they will be few and far between (London?) and much more expensive (£5 an hour instead of $5 a session). Does that do anything for you? Doesn't for me.

In reply to Marek:

Damn, I had better cancelled the new wall I am building in Dublin.

In reply to UKC News:
hmmm. Perhaps White Water Kayaking is the best parallel? It is a dangerous sport, expensive to get into, and with a steep learning curve and, though not in the same numbers, affected by similar access/enviornmental concerns as climbing. At least in the US climbers and boaters often share venues, if you think how many are 'gorges' or 'canyons'

In reply to UKC News:
25 years ago we were told that climbing comps would be the death knell of climbing as we know it. There'd be bolts on the Cromlech, charges for climbing at Stanage and routes would be chipped left, right and centre. Speed climbing would be the norm, accidents would be inevitable. There was the threat of a split in the BMC.

In fact the big change in the last 25 years has been the growth in indoor climbing, fun in it's own right and well as good training for outdoor climbing. Some indoor climbers never venture outdoors. Some outdoor climbers never venture indoors. Some people never do winter mountaineering or ice climbing. Some people never go to Scotland. We may have a sizeable number of bolted routes in the UK, but by and large the classic crags and ethics have been vigourously protected. Chipping is still very rare and some people still take several hours on routes.

So sorry to the doom-mongers, but comps haven't killed british climbing, and the broad church approach seems to keeping the BMC on track. I rather suspect both will survive the olympics

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
>> Given that currently walls don't make massive profits,


Ah, so you *are* making massive profits? Ha, ha! Fell into my trap! So where's the "...massively tall, custom built, air conditioned indoor wall with a bouldering area as big as fontainebleau ... "? No excuses now!

In reply to Marek: Whats the point of buidling a mssively tall bouldering wall and then only using the bottom 4.5m

In reply to Chris the Tall:

But there is a big difference between competition climbing and being in the Olympic movement. For myself and I imagine a lot of others competition climbing is of no interest and the people that like that sort of thing should carry on, doesn´t bother me one way or another.

Climbing in general joining a corrupt and morally rotten organisation with an "Olympian Ideal" which has in the past tolerated drug abuse, physical, mental and sexual child abuse, racism, human rights abuse, bribery and corruption and cruelty to animals just to mention a few of their failings is unacceptable to many.

Better the comp climbers get friendly with Bernie Ecclestone, it will run properly, they will become mega-rich and at least you know where the sleaze is!

Jim (who could feasably obtain a financial benefit in climbing being in the Olympics but would prefer it to be slightly cleaner money).

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Trees. Just like Font. And sand underfoot. Perhaps a pool? You have to do something with those "massive profits". I can picture it now...

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

BMC NW area has averages attendances of 20-30 people which is pretty typical of all the areas. Except, of course, that the numbers are significantly higher when a pro competition climbing lobby turns out in force to pack a particular meeting and then is never seen again when other issues of interest to climbers such as access, crag clean ups etc come up and might benefit from their support.

It is precisely because the vast majority of climbers don't attend area meetings that the NW area twice called for a referendum of the whole membership. People genuinely felt

a. that the issue was very important
b. that it shouldn't be decided by small groups attending local area meetings

There's nothing at all 'ironic' about that small group of people then asking for the whole membership of the organisation to be given a chance to express their opinion. Can you really not appreciate that a pro-olympic position endorsed by the whole membership would have had far greater ligitimacy than the policy that was eventually adopted as a result of apathy at some area meetings and attempts by competition climbers to pack other area meetings.

And perhaps most importantly, nobody on this thread has yet offered a convincing explanation as to why some people were so opposed to letting the membership speak on this issue - the only plausible reason in my opinion is that they did not want to hear the memberships voice because they feared the answer they would give.

In reply to colin struthers:



Or because it's so tiresome ? Being in the olympics is very obviously going to be massively inspirational and aspirational for some of the next generation of climbers who are thankfully (not yet) screwed up by hidebound close minded attitudes of what climbings about. How dreary and shameful if this great opportunity was dragged down into a debate of pros and cons based on whats-in-it-for-me.

In reply to shark:

My argument was more about 'what's in it for the next generation'. People will become tired of climbing just being 'another competitive sport, limited by your wallet and being near a gym complex'.

Once crags are left to the undergrowth, it take a lot to get them all back to the way they were before and polish hangs around for even longer- unlikely to ever disappear at more popular areas.

This 'Prana culture' as I like to call it- primarily indoor climbers who occasionally venture to the popular crags and bouldering walls is a real danger to climbing. You might like to see it as a basic supply and demand issue, with it not really mattering if lakes crags go back to nature as they're evidently not wanted, but I think one day people will want to go back to the hills and without the incentive of a name on an FA list, might not want to go through all the effort of re-cleaning lines.

Please don't fall into the trap of just saying 'whatever, it aint going to do any harm'.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Good that you have joined the debate Dave. Perhaps you can help with some info (I appreciate you may only be able to provide estimates):

How much money did the BMC spend on competitions last year (including on costs such as associated admin and central costs)?

How much did the BMC spend on support for the British competition teams?

Approximately how many climbers were involved as members of these teams?

Where did the money for this come from?

If any of it came as specific grants from Government who were the Governments intended beneficiaries, general climbers participating in competitions or members of elite national teams?

Perhaps interesting also that you feel that supporting an Olympic bid will require a lot of money which you consider to be 'worth it'

Where will this money come from?

Would any of it be funds that might otherwise be spent on other activities that benefit members?

Will ordinary BMC members be given the opportunity to say whether they think this will be 'worth it'?

Sorry if this all seems a bit suspicious of me - but the BMC makes great play to Government of how democratic and involving an organisation it is and it seems to me that therefore members have a right to this sort of info.

In reply to shark:

Yes democracy is tiresome isn't it. Why bother eh?

And as for whats in it for me - I have given hundreds of hours of my time as a BMC volunteer, I have organised and slogged through many crag cleaning and re-eqipping days and I have discovered and equipped many new climbs entirely at my own expense. So I don't need lectures about selfish whats in it for me attitudes from you, thank you.

How dreary and shameful if this great opportunity was dragged down into a debate of pros and cons based on whats-in-it-for-me.

And you are?, oh yes according to your profile

"Co-owner of UKBouldering and UKCaving and have just launched GBIndoor Climbing in conjunction with the GB Climbing and Bouldering Teams"

How dreary and shameful that you didn't declare your own very obvious financial interest in your OP and had to have me point it out for you.

In reply to colin struthers:> How dreary and shameful that you didn't declare your own very obvious financial interest


I wish

In reply to colin struthers:

Having been involved in working groups on the voting system, and then served 5 year on the NC, I'm actually quite proud of the fact that the Bmc is more democratic and more representative of it members than it was 7 or 8 years ago.. To me, democracy was well worth the bother.

If you and the current NC feel that the system isn't democratic enough then it's your prerogative to change it, subject to Agm approval. But I'd be very careful about saying that the views of those who attend area meetings should be disregarded in favour of those who stay at home. In the Peak we average 40-60 attendees, but never have I been aware of a meeting being dominated by a single issue mob as you imply. Yes the Bmc area meetings tend to be dominated by Bmc activists and volunteers, but when they vote overwhelmingly, such as 211 to 10, I think it would be an insult to their collective contributions to the organisation to seek a wider referendum.

In reply to HarmM:

Well, good luck with that..

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Chris, here is what happened at the NW Area:

2 meetings attended by 20+ people discussed the olympic issue before the third meeting at which a vote was taken

At both the earlier meetings a majority agreed that this was an important issue upon which the wider membership should be consulted. As you note this suggestion was not acted upon by NC.

At the second of these meetings a 'consultation' paper written by a BMC staffer was presented for the information of the meeting. It was unambiguously pro competition climbing in tone and implied that the BMC had no option but to support the bid for Olympic status. It was presented to the meeting by a BMC staff member who, in my opinion, left our meeting in no doubt about the decision we were expected to make. I think this same process occurred at other area meetings.

The NW meeting objected to the clearly partisan tone of this document and insisted that both sides of the argument should be put. Ultimately this led to an admittedly more balanced article appearing in Summit magazine.

But for the protest raised at the NW area meeting I doubt whether this would have happened. The NW area had asked for a proper public debate at which those opposed to the BMC supporting Olympic climbing would be given the chance to put their own case. This did not happen.

At the third meeting upwards of 20 additional people, most of whom had never attended an area meeting previously, turned up and effectively voted en masse in favour of the BMC supporting Olympic participation. Very few (perhaps none) of this group have bothered to attend an area meeting since.

Interestingly though, in spite of the unusual composition of those attending, the meeting did still qualify that approval with the rider that the BMC should consier whether, over the long run, it should act as the lead organisation supporting competition climbing as an Olympic sport or whether the interests of non competition climbers and competition climbers would be better served by the latter developing their own organisation. Hence the debate was quite dliberately left open for the future.

Looking back over this whole process I feel that the interests of democracy and fairness would have been far better served had the broader membership been invited to speak on the subject - and I still think that this is the case.

In reply to UKC News:
I also think it's a shame that people have lowered into a 'what's in it for me' way of thinking. I wonder if this type of thing has happened in any other sport where A LOT of their own sport community don't support them. I think maybe not.
People are saying 'its not going to benefit me because all the crags I go to are going to get ruined and spoil my climbing for me.' For one that's quite selfish to not want other people to enjoy the thing you already enjoy and you are also adding to the polish etc right now! And two, if competition climbing doesn't go into the Olympics its not going to benefit competition climbers either.
Which ever decision is made, people are going to be unhappy. So which ever one you are hoping for... Cross your fingers!!
As you all know I'm definitely wanting climbing to be an Olympic sport and from me personally, a big Thankyou to everyone who is supporting this decision!

In reply to leahc:


Judging by your posts, you are equally as guilty of this as those opposed to climbing being in the olympics. Also, as I pointed out earlier, my issues had very little to do with myself.

In reply to UKC News: Where climbing differs from many other sports is that the competition side is entirely peripheral to the mainstream. I would guess that the the majority of climbers aren't the least bit interested in climbing competitions and have no intention of even going to watch, let alone participate. Those who do participate are largely already climbing at the upper levesl. This contrasts with other sports where competition at all levels of ability is absolutely fundamental.

I have no objection to climbing being included in the Olympics, although frankly I couldn't give a monkey's either way. What would concern me is if this diverts a disproportionate amount of resources away from other aspects of the sport which are more relevant to those actually participating in it.

In reply to colin struthers:
I agree that the anti case could have been better presented. I did suggest that Summit should contain the arguments for and against so that the members could make an informed judgement. However, as I understand it, several vocal opponents of the idea were approached but declined to submit an opinion piece.

One of the problems here is the confusion as to what we are arguing about. Those who feel the Bmc should oppose climbing in the Olympics need to be aware of the inevitable consequences of that. The IFSC is obviously not to change it's mind - olympic status is it's primary goal - and the views of the Bmc won't hold much sway with the IOC. But could the Bmc continue to be the governing/representative body of comp climbing in the uk - I think not.

So this is the real question here. If climbing becomes an Olympic sport, should the Bmc relinquish responsibility for competion climbing in the Uk ? And I do agree that if the NC decides it should do this, then such a move should be approved by the wider membership

In reply to Howard J:


Therein lies the issue. It's a long way off and nobody has a clue what effect it will have as it will depend on so many things as yet unknown and at this stage probably unknowable. Yet some folk already seem convinced that it will be the end of the world as we know it for ordinary recreational climbers, as if ski races in the Olympics make it hard for people to go recreational skiing, or running races in the Olympics make it hard for people to go running.

Who's to say it would divert resources away from existing climbing funding, rather than providing additional funding, some of it having cross-over benefits to the rest of the sport? The level of determined negativity expressed by some on here (not yourself) is staggering and quite depressing. Thankfully it seems they are a particularly vocal minority and little more.

In reply to Howard J:
Skiing, snowboarding and mountain biking are all Olympic sports, and I reckon a lot of climbers participate in 1 or 2 of those sports. Does it make any difference to our enjoyment or participation in those activities. And how many of us could name the world champions in those sports.

Seriously folks, approach this as you would a bold route, rationalise your fear

In reply to john arran: Excellent point John.

Raising the profile of any sport, can only be good for that sport. Whilst the benefits maybe initially be for the top climbers (as with all sports) there will be a drip down effect for mainstream climbing.

As for the argument that has been expressed by certain posters, that it will lead to proliferation and congestion on the popular crags, well that is at best spurious. I can remember queuing up for Positron in the 80's!

The popular routes on popular crags have been congested (especially in good weather) for a long time.

I hope sport climbing does make into the Olympics (and I'm an old trad gnarly) and that if it does, our boys and girls bag a big load of medals.

In reply to colin struthers: Hi Colin, I am currently in Spain at the mo but will happily clarify the meeting I attended in th NW to answer any questions where this was discussed (3rd meeting) and will also clarify exactly what question was taken to comp comm a few weeks ago which included the recommendation by the NW, you are widely missing the point on this whole discussion, signal pretty poor so it will have to wait till third or fri.

In reply to colin struthers:


There seems to have been a lot of mention that the numbers attending area meetings are significantly inflated when this or other competition issues are being discussed. This is spoken about as if there is some kind of conspiracy to ship people in to vote (African dictator style), I would rather suggest that perhaps this inflation is due to the fact that a large number of people really do care about competition climbing and can see the benefits inclusion within the Olympics would have for the sport.

These benefits I feel would transcend “just comp climbing” and be felt in all areas of the sport from the grass routes of more children enjoying the sport we love, to the BMC having more cold hard cash to help with access and conservation.
It seems to me that these inflated numbers are the very definition of democracy in work and people voting with their feet.

I think if Sport Climbing was included in the Olympics it would be something for every climber in the world to be proud of and have benefits for us all that would far out weight any negative effects.

After all let’s not forget the Olympic creed. “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well."

I can’t think of a single sport that this represents better than climbing, I know for me that the high of success is always followed by the much stronger desire to push myself again on something that I find a challenge and have to try my hardest on.

Your future Olympic Champion 2020.

In reply to grant727:

Ok, I'm honestly curious. What will the benefits be of climbing joining the Olympics, and how will they benefit anyone but the handful or so of people involved with the British team?

And please, try to answer the question without the use of demagogy or political slogans such as 'it will raise the profile', 'it will inspire to fulfil dreams', 'it'll help future generations', etc.

In reply to TheAvenger:

Do you never get the feeling of going around in circles? Further up the thread there are plenty of POTENTIAL benefits. Of course nobody has a crystal ball and can see at this stage quite how things will materialise, but the benefits of competition climbing itself have already materialised in the shape of several high quality facilities and plenty of opportunity for some climbers to progress in a part of the sport you may not be interested in. There's no reason at all to believe extending this to Olympic involvement can't be managed with equal or greater benefits to competitors and recreational climbers alike.

If you add your name to a post I'm sure some people would enjoy discussing this with you in person if they meet you. That is if you aren't afraid to be associated with your blinkered online views in real life.

In reply to john arran: Aye, without competitions there'd be no walls.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is that really what you think I said? Or are you another one of the anonymous crowd intent on making something out of nothing for kicks?

In reply to john arran: Bit of both really.

In reply to grant727:

Pity the IOC forgot about that ideal decades ago as they travel the globe on lavish expenses accounts being courted by bidding nations. The IOC has been mired in plenty of corruption scandals in recent times.
The games has become festival of commercialism, greed, corporate sponsorship and drug abuse.
I suggest you might find more of the true olympic spirit here http://www.wenlock-olympian-society.org.uk/ than in London next year.

In reply to grant727:

Jesus! You must be the only person on the planet who still thinks this is what the Olympics is about

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The scale and high public profile of olympic competetion means that the issue is a potential game changer in terms of the BMCs relationship to competition climbing. So why didn't the whole membership have the chance to approve or reject last years endorsement of olympic competition. Or are you saying that the membership only need to be consulted if it looks like a decision you approve of might get overturned?

Finally, let me be clear about my own views on competition climbing - I'm not against it. But I do consider the idea of winners and losers, rules and regulations and arrant commercialism to be the antithesis of what I personally value in climbing.

I think that a very large number of climbers agree with me on this.

Does that mean I want to ban competition climbing or stop this sport from seeking olympic status - absolutely not - what competition climbers want is entirely their business.

However, what I do object to, big time, is a tiny minority of competition climbers using the representative body of our whole sport to

- advance an agenda that many of us don't support
- portray cometition climbing as some kind of large scale activity when it is no such thing ( as a previous poster noted, UK competition climbing may even be too small to sustain its own organisation)
- pretend that climbers as a whole support olympic climbing
- spend a hugely disproportionate amount of the BMCs resources on themselves

Now I may be wrong about whether other climbers agree with me - but rather than argue endlessly on this post about what BMC members want we could easily resolve this whole debate by just asking them.

Why wouldn't you want this?

I'd be happy to draft a proposal along the lines of

"The BMC is not opposed to competition climbing per se but acknowledges that it is not a significant activity for the vast majority of its members. Current efforts to achieve Olympic status will inevitably oblige the BMC to commit a disproportionate amount of officer time and money to this minority interest within our sport. The BMC does not feel that this is an appropriate use of its members money. The BMC therefore invites competition climbers in the UK to form their own representative body. The BMC would be willing to provide some resources to assist competition climbers in this transition and the BMC would hope to continue to enjoy cordial relations with competition climbers. The BMC will invite the newly formed comnpetition climbing organisation to affiliate to the BMC."

Those who want the BMC to continue to support competition climbing within the organisation could draft their own proposal. We could (this time) have a proper public debate and then the members could express their preference.

Why wouldn't you want them to have the chance to do this.

In reply to colin struthers: It wouldn't take too much re-wording to turn that into a motion about Club members and their disproportionately low contribution to BMC coffers

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Maybe so, but what has that got to do with this discussion?

In reply to colin struthers:


If you're looking to progressively marginalise the BMC in the eyes of government then you've found an excellent way to go about it.

The alternative is that you believe government bodies will be so in tune with your idea of what is and isn't climbing that they will listen to an organisation that doesn't give a hoot about the internationally-recognised pinnacle of sporting achievement rather than one that embraces it in addition to all of its members' recreational interests.

The reference to "appropriate use of its members[sic] money" is a complete red herring too as to my knowledge there's never been any suggestion that any subscription funds are or would be used for competition use. That's just Daily Mail speak again. The more likely flow of funds - if any - would be in the other direction.

In reply to john arran:

The BMC only receives a small proportion of its income from Government - the vast majority comes from the members own pockets in the form of the subscriptions they pay and the guide books and insurance they buy. But you seem to think we should frame our organisation around what the government thinks our sport is about, not what our members want.

Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem that the BMC faces - when the pot of Olympic funding is dangled a swathe of short sighted people will queue up to jump through whatever hoops are required irrespective of whether this is what the ordinary members want us to be doing.

And whilst we are on the subject of Government, lets just imagine a situation where the BMC has to fight against the Government on an issue such as access legislation or compulsory insurance and regulation of climbing. How is it going to put 100% into that for its members if the structure of the organisation and the status and salaries of its staff have become increasingly dependent on Olympic gold and other sources of Governement funding? If we go back to the BCU example we can see that this is precisely why it has become such a supine organisation when it comes to defending its members interests.

A handful of people cranking away on indoor plywood structures is never, ever, going to be the 'pinnacle' of our sport and we shouldn't misrepresent climbing by going along with the idea that it ever could be.

Yes, but has there ever been a misuse of funds provided, ostensibly, to promote widespread participation in climbing competitions, for example, to fund the handful of elite members of the UK team? I think we should be told...

That's just Daily Mail speak again.

As a lifelong Guardian reader I'm offended!

In reply to colin struthers:

One of my favourite quotes is "Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours." (Richard Bach)

Seems to me that you're determined to see limitations instead of possibilities, despite having pretty much no evidence to go on - only scaremongering. Hence the Daily Mail reference.

If you really want to split up the BMC and ultimately (as has happened in other countries) reduce its ability to represent the interests of all of its members, a few of whom may be determinedly anti-competition, that's fine - you seem to be going the right way about it.

In reply to john arran:

Not going to agree on this are we?

Still, the BMC is supposed to be a representative organisation so will you join me in calling for the matter to be decided by its membership?

In reply to colin struthers:

Feel free to raise it at the AGM if you feel strongly about it and believe that more than a relative handful of others share your opinion. I presume that's the appropriate channel for individual members' issues to be aired but I'm really quite (happily) out of touch with the political mechanics. Probably worth checking with the office to make sure.

I wouldn't expect it to get anywhere, but then turkeys have been known to vote for Christmas before...

In reply to john arran: So the BMC doesn't spend any of the subs we pay on competitions; if we're not pro climbing being an Olympic sport we're marginalising the BMC, we're turkeys and we read the Mail. Glad to see any "debate" will be reasonably held.

In reply to john arran:

Thanks for that, I didn't realise I needed your permission.

In reply to UKC News:

First off, like Groucho above I'm just a gnarly old trad climber but I have no problem with competition climbing becoming an olympic sport but NOT under the aegis of the BMC.

As far as I'm aware any such sport has to be managed by its own national GOVERNING body and be subject to the rules and regulations of the IOC. The BMC through its constitution is a purely REPRESENTATIVE body, in exactly the same way as the Ramblers' Association represents recreational walkers whilst competitive walking (a longstanding olympic sport) must be registered with its respective athletics governing body.

As for the argument that splitting off competitive climbing into its own independent body would marginalise the BMC, with respect that is pure hypothesis. My own view is that a BMC focussed on the very real threats in terms of access, conservation and health and safety legislation, using it's financial resources to support all its membership on these vital issues would actually become a stronger and more vibrant organisation.

If and when competitive climbing becomes a major sport both in terms of those who participate, the paying members of the public who will watch them, and the sponsors who will fall over their cheque books to support a British team, any profits(??!!) could then be channeled back to the grass roots....via the BMC.

The decision is 8 years' away, plenty of time for the competitive sport to stop hiding under the very flimsy skirts of mother BMC and make its own case.

Formal mountain training and certification is now independent of the BMC, and in my view is far better for it. If the UIAA becomes the international governing body for competitive climbing then there's no reason why a British Competitive Climbing Federation couldn't join. So go for it ladies and gentlemen I'll be with you all the way.

In reply to colin struthers:

Hi Colin.

You might not even need to wait for an AGM. I guess there must be some protocol for calling for an EGM (quorum of members etc.) It would be as undemocratic as an AGM, but might just concentrate the minds of the membership.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: The majority of people who go to Cliffhanger are families and non-climbers. The majority of BMC members were out climbing and walking. The WORLD bouldering championships were attended by how many? You make the point yourself, you could throw a sheet over the total number. Sport climbing these events are tiny tiny tiny minority sports not folowed or supported by the majority of people who enjoy the pastime. Unfortunately the small minority are active and vocal within the BMC and have used the BMC which is not a sport climbing body to further the aims of sport climbing.

In reply to colin struthers:

One of the founding principles of the BMC was to be the representative body for all forms of mountaineering and clmbing in the UK. By the 80s, that had evolved to include indoor and competition climbing. Apart from any constitutional changes, it's pretty obvious that a major change of policy, such as relinquishing control of comps would require AGM approval.

On the other hand, when only 10 people were sufficiently concerned to vote against climbing in the olympics (or more precisely, against supporting the goals of the IFSC) at any of the 9 area meetings, how on earth would the BMC have been justified the cost of running a plebicite on the issue. And if so many climbers were against the notion, why did no one submit a resolution at the AGM?

Nonetheless, the inclusion of sport climbing on the Olympic shortlist does mean the BMC has some difficult decisions to make.

What, if anything, can or should it do to influence the decision of the IOC.

And more importantly, if climbing does make it in, how will the BMC handle it. It may well be that it is best for all concerned to split off comp into a seperate body, but if that is to be done, then I sincerely hope it is done in a more considered and responsible manner than that implied by your resolution.

Good luck, you're going to have some very interesting NC metings

In reply to Chris the Tall: You are now making numbers up (which are wrong by a factor of 100%) about attendances at meetings where you were not even present. Not that the numbers really matter that much as the main thrust of the discussion was neither pro nor anti the BMC supporting climbing as an olympic sport - it was simply that most people felt that the issue was important enough for all BMC members to be asked what they felt about it.

I know it is easier to resist the idea of ordinary BMC members having a say on the subject if you pretend that no one really cares about the issue, but really, have you read the thread? A good half of the voices raise reservations about the BMC involving itself in the olympic agenda.

The idea of taking the matter to an AGM was seriously considered but was set aside when we were assured that there would be a fair and balanced debate within the organisation. In actual fact, apart form Ed Douglas's article in Summit which briefly covered some of the points, there was no opportunity to put the case against the BMC supporting Olympic participation.

On the other side however, we had a paid BMC staff member (whose job is to implement the policy that the members decide upon) touring the area meetings forcefully advocating for the policy, issuing dire but improbable threats that competition climbers from the Uk would be excluded without such a policy, and producing an utterly partisan 'consultation' paper that was widely circulated as the BMC's position on the matter.

I would be interested in calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss the issue properly. I understand I would need 100 members to support such a proposal.

I guess not many people will have had the stamina to stick with this thread for so long so I may have to start a more specific one.

In the meantime, please email me if you have read this thread and would be willing to put your name to this

Thanks

In reply to colin struthers:

In case you missed my earlier post, here is a quote from the National Council minutes of 12th September 2009

"The Area Meeting results were reported and discussed. The combined total of votes cast at all of the Area Meetings were:

211 For, 10 Against and 33 Abstain - in favour of the idea of Competition Climbing becoming an Olympic sport.

With the proviso that competitions must be conducted on artificial structures (rather than on outdoor crags), National Council unanimously agreed to support the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport."

I'm not making the numbers up, and given those numbers it would have been ridiculous for the BMC to hold a referendum on the decision.

What the BMC does next is the crucial matter. Regardless of the opinions expressed on here, we will have very little influence on the IOC's decision. We won't even have much influence on the IFSC, since Olympic status is on of it's founding principles. But if you want to force the BMC to campaign against it, you will almost certainly force a split in the organisation. Maybe such a split is inevitable, but lets do it in a well thought out manner, rather than out of hostility. And don't kid people that this will stop climbing being an olympic sport.

In reply to john arran:


Who gives a stuff what the government thinks? Climbing existed long before the BMC started jumping through government hoops and will continue to do so when it stops.
If its slightly poorer as a result it will just have to stop wasting its time on the stupid politically correct nonsense it does now to tick the required inclusivity boxes.

Then perhaps we need to write to relevant ministers to make them aware of just what a marginal activity competitions are and how totally unreperesentative it is of what most climbers value in the activity.

In reply to UKC News:
Looking through this thread and the BMC minutes it does seem that there is a consensus for indoor competitive climbing to become an olympic sport: the real issue is who should be responsible for administering that sport and I do not believe the BMC is ultimately the best organization to undertake this. Certainly it could, given its experience, play a major advisory role in the setting up of a separate body, but if the bid is to be successful in 8 years' time there is a huge amount of administrative and lobbying work to be done now which will demand significant financial and human resources.

Is it in the best interests of members, when there are so many other vital issues which our representative organization should be addressing, to be considering a whole new layer of bureaucracy within the BMC itself.

Who, for instance, will be responsible for the comprehensive drug testing of the athletes?

Considerable sponsorship will be required, and is it acceptable for the BMC to be developing such a close relationship with commercial interests? Just look at the fiasco over the Red Bull affair in Patagonia: is the BMC really ready to enter the even murkier world of the Olympic movement?

I do believe this whole issue needs complete transparency and a full and open debate, and soon, so that any bid for competitive olympic climbing can be properly submitted via an organization that is constituted specifically for that purpose.

Having one centralized body that on the one hand has to negotiate with recalcitrant landowners or vested interests whilst at the same time being responsible for the huge amount of administrative work in developing a credible olympic presence does not fit the tradition, ethos or experience of the mountaineers and climbers who fund it.

In reply to pec: just what a marginal activity competitions are and how totally unreperesentative it is of what most climbers value in the activity.



In supporting comps the BMC are ahead of the curve as it is a growing activity as is indoor climbing in general. Anyone who is involved with the BYCS will know this. The growing number of local comps at local walls is also evident. It is ridiculous to describe something as marginal if it is new and growing even if it is irrelevant to you. Climbing takes many forms now and this is a wonderful proliferation of options gives choice to mix and match your climbing activities - or you could chose to remain a trad curmudgeon resistant to change and development

In reply to pec:


... which would achieve what exactly, other than making you and a few others feel better about pretending climbing hasn't changed at all in the last 30 years? I personally think the BMC is doing a fine job (and I never thought I'd hear myself saying that!) in representing all climbers' interests, both traditional and modern.

Maybe you should let them know your views on inclusivity while you're at it, just to make sure you get the message across that you're only interested in representing white middle class men who want to climb the same things in the same way as you.

Ok, I exaggerate of course, but you would have to be pretty naïve to think the BMC would be in as strong a position when debating access and environment issues with national park and other authorities if it only sought to represent some of the interests of the many climbers in the UK. And equally naïve to think that whatever organisation was created to help manage competitions wouldn't be interested in having a 'representative' voice on sport climbing, bouldering, etc. which would inevitably cause the voice of the BMC on such issues to be diluted.

In reply to redsulike:

I went to the modern pentathlon world cup this weekend.

For the fencing and swimming rounds (free entry, in Crystal Palace) we were the only people there who weren't helping out with the event or with a competitors team.

A lot more people attended the riding and combined event side of things in Greenwich, at £2.50 entry, maybe 100 people? A lot more staff/helpers than spectators.

Still despite that apparently there will be over 4x the capacity for spectators at the Olympics and 3 of us applied for tickets for the group to go see it none of us got tickets (and they were around £70) - my point here is that just because no-one cares for the the world championships doesn't mean no-one cares for the Olympics.

In reply to shark: Aye, lots of bmc members are going to mix and match bimbling up a mvs at Stanage one day and entering the Olympics the next.

In reply to Sir Chasm:> (In reply to shark) Aye, lots of bmc members are going to mix and match bimbling up a mvs at Stanage one day and entering the Olympics the next.


The mixing and matching of styles of climbing might include sea cliff climbing one weekend, bouldering another, ice climbing and the leading ladder in the winter. There are plenty of fun comps with lower entry routes or boulder problems. As for British climbers competing in the Olympics of course they are a minority but a majority of british climbers will be cheering them on you'd hope.

In reply to shark: And bmc support for the inclusion in the Olympics is vital to all of that variety. I certainly won't cheer on British climbers if they haven't been supported by the bmc.

In reply to Sir Chasm:> (In reply to shark) And bmc support for the inclusion in the Olympics is vital to all of that variety. I certainly won't cheer on British climbers if they haven't been supported by the bmc.


Your user name suggests sarcasm but I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. There are an increasing variety of climbing types one of which is comp climbing. The basic issue is whether the BMC represents and promotes the intrests of all types of climbing or limits its representation.

Speaking personally, for me, the BMC was an irrelevance previously. However, their activity in recent years re comps, bolting and other stuff has made them relevant for me and now they they are representing and promoting what interests me in climbing. This broadening and modernising of their work can only improve their positive influence over all aspects of climbing. If the work is limited to trad climbing and mountaineering they don't have a mandate to fully represent British climbing or British climbers.

In reply to shark: Yes, yes, things can only get better.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Generally I've found that to be the case although nostalgia isn't quite as good as it used to be.

In reply to john arran:


It would stop the REPRESENTATIVE body misrepresenting itself for the benefit of a tiny minority.

You're assuming I'm a white middle class man, ok so you can tell 2 of those from my profile, but my point is that it isn't the role of a representative body to artificicially alter the demographics of the sport to suit some politically correct agenda. Does the governing body of boxing try to encourage white middle class men to take up their sport? I've no wish to artificially prevent anyone of any age, race or gender from climbing but don't believe its the BMC's job to encourage them or anyone else to start just to get its hands on some government cash or even because they happen to think it would be nice to see some 15 year old black kids climbing.


Sorry but I just don't agree with this. Why should the BMC's voice on outdoor matters like access be any stronger because it happens to represent a few hundred or so people doing something indoors on plywood when it represents 10's of thousands of people doing stuff outdoors?

Any organisation in charge of competitions would be a GOVERNING body of an organised sport which takes place only indoors. why should it have a voice on sport climbing or bouldering outdoors?
Of course there'd be nothing to stop competition climbers who also climb outdoors being a member of both organisations to have their voices heard on wider climbing matters. They also wouldn't have to bother themselves about peolpe like me who find organised competitions to be anathema to the things I value about climbing.

In reply to shark:


Its not the BMC's job to be ahead of the curve, its there to represent its existing members who overwhelmingly have no interest in formal competition.

>

What makes you think I'm a trad curmudgeon. Trad is my main activity but that doesn't mean I don't sport climb or boulder or move with the times in other ways and it is possible to move with the times and still value the long established traditions of our game.
Whilst I find competitions to be anathema to what I value in climbing I accept they are here to stay and don't in themselves cause direct harm to me but I do believe both outdoor climbing and competition climbing would be best served by separate organisations to avoid the inevitable conflicts of ineterest which arise when one body has to represent thousands whilst governing a few hundred others.

In reply to pec:

Like I said, I think that's all pretty naïve to be honest, but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Life's too short to counter all your misapprehensions in detail so I'll leave it to other readers to make of your comments what they will.

In reply to john arran:


Well we can agree on something at least, that we will probably not pursuade each other of our cases but I do find your "naïve" comment puzzling in the context in which you used it.
ie to imply that representing a couple of hundred people doing something indoors would give the BMC extra clout when negotiating access etc when they already represent c.70,000 people doing something outside.
Thats like suggesting the Ramblers association would have less clout because they don't represent race walkers.
Perhaps someone else could explain that one to me.

In reply to pec:

Repeating the most blinkered view of the subject you can think of isn't helping your case, as surely even those with no interest at all in competitions or high performance climbing can see the issue is much much wider than the absurdly narrow-minded picture you're trying to paint. I and thousands like me have an interest in competition climbing (despite not having competed for years) and would lose a degree of respect for the BMC if it decided not to be supportive of one of my climbing interests.

You're probably right about it not being naïve though, as I don't believe anybody (other than politicians of course) could be that blinkered. If you really claim not to see any wider picture then there's little point in discussing it further.

In reply to john arran:

I'm fed up with all the Wall owners, members of the Indoor Wall climbing team, their coaches and also those who make a living out of accomodation for sport climbers trying to warp the BMC into a body that they run.

The BMC is the BRITISH MOUNTAINEERING Council.
It is not French - Ariege.
It is not Climbing only.
It is most certainly not indoor climbing only.

The overwhelming majority of members of the BMC either walk (albeit stiffer routes than the Ramblers) or climb OUTSIDE for either the vast majority of the time or else ALL of the time.
Climbing on "plastic" is something they do when they can't get out.

The idea that we should become subservient - because that is what it would mean - to an extremely small minority is absurd.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

In all sports which have become "governed", the participants no longer control their own hierarchy, it's the other way round.
Furthermore the membership/insurance fees get inflated to pay for the elite - along with their hangers-on, the coaches, managers, and so forth.

The vast majority of what is covered by the BMC is enjoyment only (if you can call being 70ft above a runner on a winter route in Scotland pleasure - but then we're funny that way).
To confuse that with competition is awkward.
To further entangle ourselves with the IOC, BOC, Government sports bodies demanding gold medals for funding, and their demand for control of our organisation - and it WILL happen, as it has in the more normally competition sports - we'd be crazy.

If you want to go down the road of Olympic stardom then all well and good.

BUT DON'T EXPECT THE WALKERS, WINTER MOUNTAINEERS AND OUTDOOR CLIMBERS OF THIS COUNTRY TO FUND A FULL-TIME LIFESTYLE FOR A CHOSEN FEW.

In reply to john arran: > (In reply to pec)
I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you're imlying in you last posting


Which view in particular are you referring to?


It certainly is much wider than just a few people cranking on a wall somewhere. There are lots of potential ramifications, you think they're good, I don't. As you said earlier, we'll agree to disagree.


How is seeing potential impacts affecting the wider sport of climbing narrow minded? I've said I think your interests would be better served by having your own governing body, I've said I accept that competitions will happen, I just don't want them to be under the governance of the BMC, particularly if they become olympic.
I fail to see how that's narrow minded unless disagreeing with you always constitutes narrow minded.


Thousands? How many thousand?


Even if you had a dedicated governing body not distracted by people like me?
You could still be a member of the BMC and support their other works.


Your earlier "naïve" comment specifically related to the BMC's ability to negotiate on matters such as access. I sought clarification of how representing indoor competitions could enhance the BMC's stance on outdoor matters and you've failed to explain it but resorted to abuse.



Of course I can see a bigger picture, obviously not the same one you do (though that in itself doesn't make either of our pictures wrong) and yes, I don't think there's much point in further discussion, especially if you're going to start being abusive when all I asked for was clarification.

In reply to pec:

Certainly not abusive, Definitely bored.

Good night.

In reply to john arran:

Thanks for the clarification.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That is not a vote for the BMC's assuming a role in this, as Iain Peters also observes. The Olympic status isn't an issue here, but the role of the BMC. You seem to be deliberately conflating the two. Apologies if that's not what you're putting forward but it does come across that way.

The BMC members absolutely should review the roles the organisation adopts.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't for one minute want the BMC to campaign against competition climbing or its inclusion in the Olympics. I just want the BMC to focus on things that matter to its members and olympic competition is, apart from for a tiny minority, simply not one of those things. I would prefer competition climbing to be independently represented.

It might interest you to know that this is precisely what happens in equine sports, where the mass membership organisation is the BHS but the organisation responsible for olympic riding events is the BEF. Similalrly the BSS represents olympic ski-ing but the majority of non competitive skiers, if they are members of any organisation, tend to belong to the Ski Club of GB.

If you look at these organisations websites you will see that they get along just fine with each other, nobody regards these arrangements as amounting to a split and none of the organisations has gone into decline because of the others existence. In the climbing world there is already a precedent for this in the way that the MLTB enjoys close relationships with the BMC whilst remaining a separate organisation.

I really don't see the problem.

In reply to john arran:


Aha! You are Dave Spart and I claim my reward

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Exactly. This thread is not about the pros and cons of competitive climbing as an Olympic sport but whether it is in the best interests of its members for the BMC to become the national governing body (mandatory for all olympic competitions) to administer it. To state that there would be a huge financial return, including substantial government funding, that would benefit British mountaineering as a whole is pure conjecture at this stage.

It has been pointed out that the BMC already support competitive climbing in various forms, and our national teams do manage considerable success with minimal funding compared to other countries. I suggest a properly focussed separate federation, whilst still maintaining strong links with the BMC would be much more likely to attract commercial sponsors than a hard-pressed representative body whose main funding, quite rightly, is obtained from its members and has to address the many diverse threats to British climbing and mountaineering.

When it comes to the crunch, whether on access, conservation or health and safety issues the voice of mountaineering in this country is not much more than a whisper compared to the shouting from the walking, wildlife and political lobbies. A gold medal on indoor plastic will not alter that, in fact it might marginalize our sport even further by shifting the emphasis from the dangerous outside where people can injure themselves or die to the safe and controlled environment of the gym.

This is all pure semantics at present. If the UK is going to make a realistic bid for climbing to be included at the 2020 Olympics then the issue of who will make that bid needs sorting now. For this reason alone the management committee of the BMC should consult the membership as a whole. The means are readily available to allow both sides of the argument to be presented, and a decision taken.

If the BMC management arbitrarily decide that they already have a full mandate to become the governing body of British Olympic competitive climbing and proceed with this bid, I for one will resign. However should a majority of climbers agree that the BMC is the best organization for promoting and administering competitive climbing I would accept that decision.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
- I asked how we should go about making a case for climbing as an Olympic sport and his first reaction was, 'how much money do you have'. Making the case will require a major effort - not just from the BMC but from the wider outdoor (and indoor) community, but for a one-off opportunity like this I think we've got to make a go of it.

As you say Dave, you and the BMC support the idea, do you also include the membership?

So you need shedloads of money for this bid: how do you propose getting it from the wider outdoor community when you haven't even asked them if they want it (the Olympics) in the first place? I think some priorities, within a so-called democratic organization, need to be sorted here first.

I am not suggesting that you or your management committee should spend your time consulting the membership before taking action on every single issue, but I do think that the BMC's direct involvement in Olympic competitive sport climbing is one that has the potential to be extremely divisive and unless handled with total transparency, accurate costings and full consultation with members could lose you far more than any gain financial or otherwise from a gold medal.

In reply to Chris the Tall: If I understand things correctly Chris you were heavily involved in removing the block vote from clubs to a one member one vote system. Can you not see or do you not accept that instead of making the BMC more democratic you simpy shifted the power to the the even smaller clique that is the management of the BMC. Were you aware of this at the time.
Surely if the BMC is to be more democratic it should ensure that it really is one member one vote by contacting members instead of rolling out the old excuse and bleating on about 'attendance area meetings' that simply isn't going to happen and gives carte blanche to Dave Turnbullet al to make the BMC in their own image.

In reply to redsulike:
Oh dear, you are resorting to the personal attack again. I thought we were past that.

Yes I was part of the campaign to get rid of the block vote.

I remember saying at the time that this would shift power to the area meetings, and away from the closed meetings of the committees of a dozen clubs. I stand by that, and stand by the fact that it was the right thing to.

It would be ridiculous for every decision the BMC makes to be refered back to its members, but every voting member of the National Council is elected by an open meeting - the President and VPs by the AGM, the rest by the area meetings. That to me is democratic.

Just because a decision gets made that you don't agree with doesn't mean it has been reached undemocratically. A more likely explanation is that you are in the minority.

The funny thing is that back in 2009 the full BMC membership did have a chance to choose the future direction of the BMC - there was a presidential election. One candidate was avowedly anti-bolt, anti-competition, anti-olympics and wanted to swing the balance of power firmly back towards the clubs. He lost by 639 votes to 289.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Definitely not attacking you personally Chris, as I respect your views, and I agree about abolishing the block clubs vote; in fact I've now come round to thinking that the reduced club BMC subscription automatically included with a club's membership subscription may have reached its sell-by date. However both that issue and the individual agendas of the 09 presidential candidates are not really relevant. The total votes cast were still a tiny fraction of the membership.

This issue of the BMC and the Olympic bid is too important (for both sides of the debate) to be left with either the Management Committee, the AGM or even local area meetings, yet the solution is so simple: put the whole issue to the membership now, either via the BMC website or via an extra newsletter and then a vote. Unwieldy? maybe. Necessary? Absolutely.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
>

Has anyone suggested this? Wouldn't it be more ridiculous for the BMC never to consult its members given that it clearly has the means to do so? There are over 5,500 hits on this thread - that rather suggests that the issue matters to a lot of people.


The funny thing is that you are making a completely irrelevant point here. It was a vote to elect a president, not a vote on whether the BMC supported the idea of olympic climbing. I voted for Rab for a variety of reasons, his views on the olympic issue were not one of them. I imagine a lot of other people did too.

In reply to colin struthers:

You and others are claiming that the BMC was undemocratic in not having a EGM or referendum on the Olympic issue back in 2009. Given the indication that only 5% of the members were opposed to the decision, it therefore follows that you believe that any vaguely contentious issue needs to go back to membership.

You and Iain have made some very good points in your posts. I too would be interested to know how the BMC is working to support this bid, but my expectation is they won't be spending much money it, just having a word in the right ears. The irony being that you are the one in a position to check up on this, not me.

But in my view, now is not the time to be taking this issue to the membership, mainly because it's still too much of an unknown. If climbing becomes an olympic sport, then there could be a need for big changes. Someone needs to start thinking now what needs to be done (yep, in time-honoured fashion, a working group is required), but lets get some proposals prepared before we have a vote on it. And if climbing doesn't get in, do we really need to split up the BMC ?

In reply to Chris the Tall: Now I am sorry, but that was not a personal attack. It was a criticism of your stance.

And you make my point very clearly for me. The total votes cast in the presidential election were 928. That is not representative of the 60,000 membership and it is not democratic.

It seems indicative of the BMC heirachy to suggest that asking the membership is ridiculous, a pretty poor attitude to the membership from one of their representatives.

Pleae do not take this robust criticism as a personal attack, it isn't, but I am not in a minority, you are. If you are so certain what could possibly have to fear from greater democracy.

In reply to redsulike:

Of course it's democratic. Those who didn't vote (including me) were exercising their democratic right not to vote. In my case it was because I didn't care who won.

In reply to redsulike:

Please explain, and provide evidence, for this claim

>If you are so certain what could possibly have to fear from greater democracy.

Obviously we have different definitions of democracy, I think the current system is a very good model of representative democracy. Please explain how going back to the club block vote would represent "greater democracy"

In reply to redsulike:

... bleating on about 'attendance area meetings' that simply isn't going to happen and gives carte blanche to Dave Turnbullet al to make the BMC in their own image.

These comments smack of someone who really has no idea how the BMC works.

If you really do care then I suggest you go along to your next area meeting, then ask to attend National Council to really see how decisions are made and who makes them, cause it really is'nt all about a few people!

Sam NC SW

In reply to Chris the Tall: I do not want to go back to the block vote system, I want to move the current system on to that where members are asked to voice their opinion in a ballot, postal, online, or in person. The current system enables a small but active minority to steer the organisation down a path that most of the membership (In my opinion) would not seek to do.
If you would stop arguing that consulting the wider membership is ridiculous and a proper vote were held then whatever the result I could accept that BMC policy reflects the wishes of its membership. The nub of the argument thet you and I have is that you are determined that BMC plicy does exactly that just now, and I find that disingenuous.

In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Wotcha Sam, how's things?! I agree with you, but I do believe that when there are issues such as this one that potentially have long reaching implications for the BMC on a national and international level, and where there are strong arguments on both sides then a wide-ranging discussion and an appropriate ballot is not only necessary but will prevent endless arguments about the nature of democracy within the BMC.

A few years' back we did this in the CC over the possible acquisition of a new hut in the Lakes. Committee thought it was a good idea, and a subsequent EGM attended by about 60 approved the scheme with the proviso that members should be balloted. I was newsletter editor at the time and published an extra edition devoted to the project in which both sides of the debate were given editorial. The subsequent vote by the rank and file produced a large majority against the scheme. End of story and we all moved on. It ain't rocket science in this day and age of electronic communication and I for one would have no problem in having my subscription to the BMC used in this way. Votes for Climbers!

In reply to Iain Peters:

The BMC is supposed to represent the interests of all climbers etc, not just their membership so the views of all will have to be consulted, not just members.

In reply to UKC News:


Just to confirm a few things on this thread regarding the discussion as we seem to have gone widely off track.

Firstly, the BMC is a Founding Member of the IFSC, what that means is that the BMC will;
________________

Article 6 of the IFSC Statutes

MEMBERS of the IFSC will be Associations which act as the national representatives of the sport of competition climbing in their countries.
a) Only one association from each country can be affiliated as a full member of the IFSC

Article 8 of the IFSC Statutes
All members and associate members should be member of their National Olympic Committee or actively seeking such membership.

All Members, Observer Members and Associate Members shall comply with the Statutes and Regulations of the IFSC and with any resolutions adopted by the IFSC. All Members, Observers, and Associates will undertake to request the same of their individual members participating in activities of the IFSC.

________________

Back in 2009 the IFSC were pushing for IOC recognition and it was going to ask all member federation to support their bid for Climbing or a discipline of Climbing, as governed by the IFSC to become an Olympic sport.

The BMC, as one of the founding members of the IFSC had always originally abstained on any Olympic questions because there was never the discussion had with the membership but there was going to be the question asked and the BMC needed have a opinion and make a decision, if we were to abstain or not support the bid then we would not be operating under the IFSC Statutes at the time they were pushing;

“to promote the spirit of the Olympic Movement, respect the Olympic Charter, and to seek programme status in the Olympic Games;”

If the BMC did not complying with the IFSC’s Statutes;
________________

Article 11 of the IFSC Statutes
A member may be excluded from the IFSC by the Plenary Assembly for failure to comply with these Statutes or other regulations of the IFSC. This decision requires at least half of the members of IFSC having the right to vote be present or represented. To be adopted, such items must receive the approval of two thirds of the votes cast.

________________

If this happened then it would have meant that the British Teams would not have been able to compete internationally, there was also the World Championships in Ratho and the Bouldering World Cup at Sheffield to accommodate for.

The question asked was specific and was to support the “Olympic Ideal” that the IFSC was pushing for, the question that went to the areas was as follows;

The proposal that - “The BMC should support the IFSC’s bid for Indoor Climbing to become an Olympic Sport” - needs to be discussed at Area Meetings so that a final decision can be adopted at the National Council Meeting on 12 September 2009.


It was agreed that as much should be done as possible to advertise it and get the information out there so that people/members were fully informed, following that, Ed Douglas did an article for Summit and this was recreated on the BMC website here;

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3172

This Article was posted on the 26/06/2009 prior to the National Council Meeting that was happening on the 12/09/2009 and 2,583 viewed the article online.

It was put online at the same time as it was in Summit 54, summer 2009. This went out to 45,000 individual members, this was also sent out to all National Council Reps as a paper, to take to their areas for discussion on the 5th June 2009

At the National Council meeting where it was to be decided the minutes are as follows;

6.1
Climbing and the Olympics

6.1.1
The Area Meeting results were reported and discussed. The combined total of votes cast at all of the Area Meetings were:

211 For, 10 Against and 33 Abstain - in favour of the idea of Competition Climbing becoming an Olympic sport.

With the proviso that competitions must be conducted on artificial structures (rather than on outdoor crags), National Council unanimously agreed to support the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport.

6.1.2
The future management of competitions was also discussed in light of the following point raised by the North West Area:

The North West Area feels that, over the longer term, the BMC must address the issue of whether the interests of competition climbers and the broader BMC membership might be better served by the creation of an autonomous or semi-autonomous body that would represent competition climbing and that would have responsibility for pursuing the goal of Olympic participation.

6.1.3
After discussion it was concluded that this was an issue to be considered at a future date; Audrey Seguy suggested that the BMC should be an inclusive organisation rather than exclusive and that competitions might best be retained within the remit of the BMC.

Following on from that at the National Council meeting in Swanage the following was posted on the BMC website;

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=4349

And Rab sent the following letter to the IFSC;
__________________
Dear Marco,

I am writing to you to confirm that the British Mountaineering Council has come to the decision to support the ‘Olympic Ideal’.

Over the past year there has been a long debate as to whether the BMC should be supporting the idea of Competition Climbing becoming an Olympic Sport. After many discussions and magazine articles each of our 9 Areas voted in favour of the pursuit of the Olympic ideal.

This was finally ratified by National Council at their Meeting on 12th September 2009. The BMC is now very pleased to be working in unison with IFSC and the decision will allow Graeme Alderson to play a full role within your Organisation. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with IFSC in Competition Climbing.

Yours sincerely,

Rab Carrington President British Mountaineering Council
__________________

There is a perception on this thread that there are only a “handful” that take part or have any interest in competitions, here are a few stats for you

BMC Youth Climbing Series 2011: 468 kids in England and Wales (applications from Scotland and Ireland don’t go through to the BMC but for reference there were 250 that took part in all rounds in Scotland and 274 took part in all rounds in Ireland of which there was 189 attended the finals at Wolf Mountain, I believe there were over 500 people there on the day.

BBCs 2011: 138 competitors
BLCCs 2010; 97 Competitors

BMC Open Youth:
November 2009: girls = 53 / boys = 75. Total 128
July 2010: girls = 31 / boys = 43. Total 74
November 2010: girls = 45 / boys = 67. Total 112

It is these juniors and the up and coming youngsters that have aspirations to be on the British Teams and possibly take part in the Olympics.

The BMC Competition Committee put together a Competition Specific Newsletter called Psyched! which the sole purpose is to promote competitions and report on competitions, this is done purely in a voluntary capacity by the people who contribute articles and photos, the download stats are

Psyched Stats from downloads
Psyched 4: 1445
Psyched 3: 1322
Psyched 2: 1298
Psyched 1: 1273

If you are interested in viewing the work that goes into the Newsletter you can download any of the last 4 copies from here; www.thebmc.co.uk/psyched

Colin, with regards to the following;

“BMC NW area has averages attendances of 20-30 people which is pretty typical of all the areas. Except, of course, that the numbers are significantly higher when a pro competition climbing lobby turns out in force to pack a particular meeting and then is never seen again when other issues of interest to climbers such as access, crag clean ups etc come up and might benefit from their support.”

As Chair of the Competition Committee I attended your Northwest Area meeting where I was asked to attend by the NC rep to answer any questions that people may have on the subject, I drove from Leicester at my own expense and in my own time to attend. If I am honest, it was a waste of my time, you were not in the slightest bit interested in anything I had to say and if I remember correctly you didn’t even bother acknowledge my attendance or who I was.

As far as numbers went there were 30 people there which if you think that the Northwest Area Meeting prior to the Olympic discussion had 29 people at it and your following meeting had 33 people at it does not reflect a turning out in force lobby.

As well as myself there were 3 junior members that turned up (Charlotte, Matty and Robby), who couldn’t have voted anyway and other than then that only pro comp people who were there would have been Ian, Nina, Jon, Naomi and Jordan. So of the 30 people who attended that is not a mass representation of pro comps force at what seemed like a normal attendance.

People should note that it is not the BMC pushing for it, it is our International Governing Body the IFSC that is pushing it and that short listing is only a hurdle that has been passed. At the Competition Committee on the 13th June 2011 prior to the IOC decision the question was asked that;

Whether the BMC should retain control of competition should climbing get onto the Olympic Games Programme.

This is in light of the announcement by Marco Scolaris (IFSC President) at the Closing Ceremony of the Vail Boulder World Cup, that the short list of sports for possible inclusion in the 2020 Games will be published on 4th July 2011 and that Climbing may well be on the list.

So is the BMC as an organisation, capable of running an Olympic Sport?

This is in line with the decision made at the 17th National Council in September 2009 where it was said that;
The North West Area feels that, over the longer term, the BMC must address the issue of whether the interests of competition climbers and the broader BMC membership might be better served by the creation of an autonomous or semi-autonomous body that would represent competition climbing and that would have responsibility for pursuing the goal of Olympic participation.

After discussion it was concluded that this was an issue to be considered at a future date.
_________

With regards the subject on Rules and Regulations and why people climb, there are rules in outdoor climbing as much as Competitions, the number of very heated debates on what you can and cant do…. Ab Stations, Bolting, Fixed Gear, Dry Tooling, Mixed Climbing… the rules in outdoor climbing are far more varied and greyer and less transparent than Competition Climbing… or is that ethics?

In reality, we need to be thinking sooner rather than later about the BMC’s role, the final decision on the inclusion of one of the shortlisted sports in the 2020 Olympics will be taken during the 125th IOC Session in Buenos Aires in 2013 so a decision has to be made before then with reagrd’s to the Governing of it, which, although the BMC is a Representative body in the IFSC’s eyes it is the Governing Body in the UK for Competition Climbing.

In reply to Iain McKenzie: All you have done here is draw a timeline as to how the BMC has manipulated the current situation. This is a top down initiative, and the top of the BMC is pro sport and pro competition, it has not been developed as a call from the wider membership.

In reply to redsulike:

sorry but, which part of all the advertising and going to area meetings, summit, web site, and a call for people to vote did you not understand...

It also came from the IFSC and not the BMC.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Hi Iain

things are good thanks for asking, although its a tad too warm as I am based over here in Spain for the next few weeks!.

I also agree that this issue has long reaching implications and alot needs to be discussed, agreed etc, IF we get it in the Olympics.

Regards

In reply to Iain McKenzie:

Hi Iain

thanks for taking the time to put all this information on the thread, really interesting.

Ignore redsulike, I think he is from Barnsley and you know what that means ;0)

Sam

In reply to Iain McKenzie: sigh!

In reply to Iain McKenzie: The bit where everyone got a ballot paper.

In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Most people from Barnsley are ok

In reply to Iain Peters:
Oh god, please don't mention the CC and Huts, that really was contentious....

Despites Reds attempts to misquote me, I am not opposed with the BMC consulting with it's membership. In fact the exact opposite is true. In my time as NC rep (please note Mr Red - i was the peak area rep on the NC, not the BMC rep at the peak area) I would try to get a feel for how the members felt on various issues. I was lucky to get 10 minutes at the end of the meeting - quite understandably people were far more concerned about local access issues.

What I have said is ridiculous is the notion that every decision made by the NC should be ratified by a referendum of all the members. And if it's only to be the contentious issues, then what is the level of opposition required to trigger such a referendum - surely it would have to be more than 10 people!

In reply to redsulike:

depends if they still live there or have escaped like we have :0)

Don't give Iain too hard a time the BMC is way more than most climbers comprehend, I certainly had no idea how it ran until I spent time on NC.

Everyone does have a say no matter how quiet/loud their voice, if people don't speak at all then they don't care enough do they?

Sam from Cudworth!

In reply to Chris the Tall:
So would you favour a referendum on this issue?

This situation reminds me of an old joke...
...in which a young man asks a girl if she would sleep with him if he gave her a million pounds. She thought about it and said yes she probably would. He then asked if she would sleep with him if he bought her a Malibu and Coke, to which she replied; 'Certainly not, what kind of girl do you think I am?' he replied, we have ascertained what type of girl you are, we are simply haggling over the price!

Are arguing over the trigger point, or concern over the outcome.

In reply to Sam Mayfield:

I had similar advice from Chris and took him up on it and attended several area meetings which I very much enjoyed. I also got to meet Chris and other local activists like you and of course found out he is a very nice chap even though I disagree with him on almost everything it seems.

However, it really IS about a few people. Certainly in the Peak, and I imagine it is similar elsewhere, it is always difficult to find people who are prepared to give up their time to take on officer roles. I have the greatest admiration for the hundreds of volunteers -like Henry Folkard for example who seems to work tirelessly on access issues and attend hundreds of other meetings and sit on committtees- who do so much to represent the interests of climbers through the BMC.

Surely though it is not beyond the wit of this organisation to consult more widely with its membership when there exists at the BMC the name address and email of every BMC member in the country.

In reply to redsulike:

Which is open to massive corruption! surely you can see that.

Sam

In reply to Iain McKenzie: The numbers you are quoting represent only a handful of members.

In reply to Sam Mayfield: I'm not sure of your point there, hundreds and maybe thousands of other organisations are able to do it.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
....but I think I got away with it, Basil! The point of including a reference was not to highlight the CC's internal struggles but merely to suggest that a ballot in that case resolved what could have become a hugely divisive and (expensive) issue.

On the question of the other Iain's extensive reply regarding comp stats etc., I can see his point, but even so the stats themselves hardly represent a big percentage of British climbers. If the BMC is going to carry its membership then whatever the individual agenda of the management and officers, it should consult those members in the most appropriate way before continuing with further negotiations, whatever the demands of the IFSC.

I believe the BMC is already over-stretched by the demands made upon it in terms of access, organization of local areas, conservation etc. etc., and I do not think it is constitutionally capable of wearing two hats, representative and governing (regulatory). Sure, the experience gained over running comps and indoor sport climbing would be invaluable for any Olympic bid and I would expect and hope that the BMC would have a seat on any future competition regulating body, but such a body must have full independence. Every other professional mountaineering organization in this country, the MLTB, MRT, Guides Associations, Mountain Medicine is independent although the BMC closely liaises with all of them.

Why on earth does it not now cut out all the reams of statistics, personal agendas, bureaucratic bullshit and put the whole question out to its membership and then act on the response?

Personally I find the whole idea of top level sport at world and Olympic level distasteful, not because I don't admire the efforts and commitment of the athletes such as the members of the British climbing team, but simply by the outright nepotism and blatant corruption of the administrators. The organization that will carry forward this bid will have to be prepared to swim in some exceedingly murky waters. Already our CEO has been told that the major requirement for successful lobbying is "lots of money". I am not so naive as to believe that this can be obtained without some major swallowing of principles. In today's highly commercialized world the tail too often wags the dog.

My hope is that the main body of British climbers, whether sport, trad, boulderers, scramblers or mountaineers, given the facts, will decide that their representative body should distance itself from the IOC and hand over responsibility to an organization specifically set up and funded for that purpose.

In reply to UKC News:

Chris mentioned a split within the BMC. It would be in the interests of all if we could cut the sport and competition climbers loose to pursue their own agenda. I think that aside from the obvious question over money, what sport climbers really need the IFSC accreditation.
Certainly if someone were to set up an organisation more closely affiliated to the original aims of the BMC and less like the current BMC I would support it and transfer my membership.

In reply to redsulike:

Please provide examples of other organisations that hold regular referendums or EGMs. For example, I'm not aware that the National Trust held a full vote of it's membership before they took over management of the Eastern Moors or put in their bid for Stanage.

Should the BMC have held a full vote before they put in a bid for Wilton ?

In reply to redsulike:

"It would be in the interests of all if we could cut the sport and competition climbers loose to pursue their own agenda"

Are you suggesting that sport climbing be removed from the BMC's remit?

In reply to MJ:

The same arguments that run through this thread are the reason the Austrian Alpine Club split off the responsibility into an independent organisation (ÖWK) under the ÖAV. The Germans (DAV) are considered most likely to go down this route as well.

In reply to jimtitt:

It wouldn't make any sense for the BMC to jetison sport climbers. The vast majority are also trad climbers and obviously vice versa. Quite a lot from both camps will also go into the mountains in this country and abroad. Basically, most climbers from Britian enjoy all aspects of the "sport" whereas maybe on the continent the disciplines are a bit more defined.

Additionally, I wonder how much revenue the BMC get from sport climbers taking out insurance?

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Much depends on the wording of their constitution or charter, and there have been major disputes within the NT particularly over the sale of covenanted properties.

The purchase of a crag such as Wilton using members' funds, provided the sums involved are affordable would seem to me to be in the best interests of all climbers and therefore not at all controversial. However the long-term financial and administrative commitment of running a team of elite athletes could compromise the essential task of maintaining access and representation wherever necessary of the climbing community. That is the difference and that is why the views of all those who pay for the BMC must be given an opportunity to decide .

Of course a ballot might well give the green light to the BMC to go ahead and become the governing body for competitive climbing all the way up to Olympic level, and crusty old curmudgeons like myself would have to sink back into our armchairs, clasping our mugs of Mummery's Blood, whilst muttering darkly about the death of the Golden Age and when we black-balled those damnable fox-shooting Germans for hammering their devilish ironmongery into the sacred mountains of Wales!

In reply to MJ:

Good Lord no! I was referring to competition climbing.

In reply to redsulike:

Like who? Please name an organisation that would trust an email vote?

I am sure I could get hold of 100's of email address for BMC members that dont really give a damn but would vote the way I told them.

I wouldnt trust anything like that at all!

Sam

In reply to jimtitt:

Sorry Jim, my reply was more directed to Redsulike.

In reply to MJ:


There does arise at times some confusion here. Sport climbing and competition climbing are not synonymous. This I think is partly due to the governing body of competitions being called the IFSC (international federation of sport climbing presumably) and the news story at the start of this thread also referred to sport climbing.
Perhaps in foreign lands where sport climbing is the norm, it is simply called climbing and sport climbing is reserved for comps?
I'm speculating there but its the competetive aspect which is causing the controversy in the UK with the potential conflict of representative Vs governing body etc.

In reply to Sam Mayfield:

Sam you old cynic you! I was going to suggest hacking in to the BMC's mobiles, seems like that's a good way to sell yourself to the public. No, the recent massive email response to the government's proposal to sell off our forests showed the way forward. I would also point out the small matter of bringing down a corrupt dictator in Egypt largely because Facebook, Twitter and other electronic means were made available to the protesters.

Let's say the BMC organized a ballot on this issue, through email or paper, the result either way might not be constitutionally binding but it would be a brave (foolish?) committee who would ignore a sizeable majority for or against, and I bet it would involve larger numbers of ordinary climbers than an area meeting.

In reply to Sam Mayfield: My union regularly holds ballots that are strictly regulated, I have them from the COOP, my mortgage lender, my insurance company etc. I have never voted by email but receive notifications from dozens of organisations on upcoming meetings, events and deadlines.

In reply to Chris the Tall: That's a no then is it?

In reply to john arran:
In reply to john arran:

I was thinking that - as someone who would most accurately be labelled a sport climber at the moment, comp climbing is currently much more interesting and relevant to me than anything involving walking/mountaineering. If there were the BMC and another body dealing with comps, sport and bouldering I'd be joining the latter, despite the fact that I've never been that into doing comps. Certainly those 3 seem to sit more neatly together in my head than walking up hills fits with doing link ups at the tor.

In reply to redsulike:
Trade unions are subject to strict, some might say punitive, legislation, so not exactly a valid comparison.

The co-op has just sent me a ballot paper for election to my local area committe, who I gather give direction to the professional management, and elect members of the national board. This is actually a very similar model of representative democracy to that which the Bmc now has, albeit the Bmc has less layers, being a much smaller organisation

You vote for the person. The person makes the decision. The coop doesn't go back to the electorate to ratify those decisions. Sound familiar?

Yes, the coop runs it's elections through through the electoral reform society - anyone know the cost of this ? - whereas elections to the NC are a bit more informal. One reason for this is that you are lucky to find even one person who can be persuaded to do the job. However, when I stood down, I made sure that people had plenty of warning that I would be standing down and that the next election should take place at the area AGM. There was still only one candidate, so calling in the electoral reform society to conduct a ballot would have been a trifle overkill don't you think ?

In reply to MJ:

First they came for the competion climbers, but I wasn't a competion climber so I did nothing

In reply to Iain Peters:

lol cynic me?

Just wanted to point out btw that I cant get hold of 100's of BMC members email through any other means than all my mates, facebook friends etc to swing a vote I DONT have access to any email systems!

Sam

In reply to abarro81:

They may fit together more neatly as activities, but the role of the organisation would be quite different.

As a BMC member, I think of it as being about handling access issues, conservation, finding and expressing a consensus on bolting, organizing insurance and helping out clubs, and generally being there to speak for Joe Climber when climbing brushes up against the media or politics. I don't do much sports climbing or bouldering (largely cos I'm not good enough) but I can see how they're affected by largely the same issues.

Organising a national competition calendar, choosing and coaching an elite national team, and potentially dealing with the IOC involves a whole other lot of issues which have very little crossover with that stuff, and while it'd be nice to see the best climbers getting the same recognition as other top athletes and it brings a patriotic whatsit to my curmudgeonly heart to to see british climbers doing well on the international scene, but that's not why I'm in the BMC...

Long story short, I'd be interested to know how much time, money and effort the BMC devotes to competition climbing relative to its other areas of responsibility. If the answer is 'a significant amount' I can certainly see a case for being very careful and very open about who's paying for what and how.

FWIW, cycling seems to do alright with the CTC representing the interests of 'recreational' cyclists and British Cycling handling the competitive side...

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You have already been given an excellent example in the CC's decision to consult all its members re the proposed purchase of a hut in the Lakes.

Wilton was a difficult one as the time scale was very tight and the BMC needed to act.

Nevertheless, if the BMC already had, at that time, the mechanics for consulting its membership more widely (which, I am assured is technically no big deal), then I would have had no problem with a swift ballot to establish that the purchase of Wilton was something that members wanted.

Please note that I say this as NW Area Chairman and someone who was personally in favour of the purchase of Wilton and who would have been saddened and disappointed if it had not happened.

However, I am also a democrat and I think it matters that members of a large voluntary organisation have a say it issues of major significance.

It is perhaps a shame that some of the pro olympic climbing lobby ddo not seem to have the same enthusiasm for getting their agenda endorsed by the members of the organisation they profess to support.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Executive summary of the above:
I've got no objection to competition climbing and to climbing being in the olympics, but I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the BMC have to choose between using their limited resources to help Team GB bid for olympic gold or using them to fight to maintain access rights at a significant crag...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

seconded!

Sam

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Then they came for the sport climbers, but I only sport climbed on Euro-rock holidays so I did nothing

In reply to Ramblin dave:

A very good summary of the nub of the issue.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The BMC currently has 3 full time access officers and one person whose time is split between comps and walls.

People may find this article illuminating

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2114

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Cool, thanks!

FWIW, I'm not saying that this is happening, just that it's worth being cautious and transparent if there's a risk of going down a road where it could happen...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm working here from a vague memory, but didn't a similar conflict arise with kayaking/canoeing some time in the past? The gist being that the BCU now does relatively little in terms of access etc, and is mainly about support competitive kayaking/canoeing. Anyone here familiar with BCU history? Are they a reasonable example of the issues raised in this thread? Can we learn from their experience?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Now we are getting onto the vaild issues - How best the BMC can act as a pressure group for access ?

My view is that a high membership BMC, covering all aspects of the sport, will have the most power when it comes to lobbying (and this is something which the BMC are already very good at). Yes a higher profile may cause some landowners to cause problems, but at the same time having high-profile figues on your side can help PR battles - e.g Chris Bonington on forests. An acrimonius split would do great damage to the BMC, IMHO.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I don't think that spinning off i) the organisation of national competitions and ii) the coaching of the national squad to a separate organisation would constitute and acrimonious split.

I'm not sure whether the BMC being associated with Olympic competition would strengthen or weaken their lobbying position on issues relating to outdoor climbing, to be honest - it might increase their membership or their visibility, but it might also dilute their mandate, since they'd be less clearly and directly associated with outdoor climbing.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
In general I agree with you, but...


I'd rather my money went towards comp climbing than helping out clubs.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

It would be good to have an update of the figures Dave Turnbull gives at the end of that article:

"The wider question of funding for competitions remains a difficult (and political) one for the BMC.

"We used to receive £30k/year from UK Sport. In 2003 this was phased out as a result of changing priorities and - what it judged to be – the limited competition success of British climbers. The BMC then created a c£15k annual budget for competitions (from membership subscriptions and trading income). Last year [2008] our total spending on competitions, including staff time and overheads, was £71k (roughly £1.10/member). This year and next [09/10], the amount has been topped up by additional Sport England funding: £16.7k in 2009 and £20.6k in 2010."

Quote attributed to Dave Turnbull BMC CEO, October 2009.

In reply to colin struthers:

As far as I am aware the BMC does not possess the ability to conduct a swift, internet ballot, nor would it be constitutional to do so (nor democratic - but that's another issue). The only alternative to consulting area meetings would have been to hold an EGM, presumably with the option of postal voting. I've no idea of the cost of this, presumably less than the cost of Wilton, possibly close to the annual budget for comps.

The votes from the areas were overwhelming, how anyone thinks the NC could have called for an EGM in those circumstances is beyond me.

P.S. I bet Sam, Iain Mac etc are glad that you and I were never on the NC together - it was bad enough with me and Lyndon

In reply to john arran:

Now you're just being silly

In reply to Chris the Tall:
An acrimonius split would do great damage to the BMC, IMHO.

As has already been noted, there is already a separation between the olympic governing body and the mass membership organisations for equine sports, ski-ing and cycling and there is also a similar separation in climbing organisations in Austria and possibly in the future in Germany.

What evidence do you have that any of these arrangements created an 'acrimonious split'. If you look at the websites for these organisations the different representative bodies appear to be getting along just fine.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Chris, a simple print out ballot paper slipped in to Summit would have minimal printing costs and no extra postage. The same issue could also carry a resume of both sides of the debate. Whether or not this would be undemocratic is a moot point, but at the very least every individual member of the BMC would have an opportunity to express their opinion for the cost of a return postage stamp and some office time collating the replies. If the BMC could buy Cloggy for that price or run an international climbing competition, I guess the members would be overjoyed! I have already said in an earlier reply that any such poll result would probably not be constitutionally binding, but the BMC management would ignore the results at their peril whichever way the vote went.

In reply to colin struthers:
OK, I know I've rambled a bit on this thread, so I can't expect you to have read everything I've posted, so here's a summary

If the BMC had decided to strangle comps at birth back in the 80s, that could have led to an acrimonius split.
If the NC had refused to support the olympic issue back in 2009, that could have led to an acrimonius split.
If the BMC were to accept that motion you put forward, that could lead to an acrimonius split
If the BMC were to adopt Reds "Get out and stay out" approach to comps and sport climbers, that would definitely lead to an acrimonius split!

If, on the other hand, the BMC has a think, consults with comp climbers and comes up with a structure that would be in the best interests of all concerned, then any split, if deemed neccessary, would be amicable. The BMC might keep, lets say, moral guidance, and provide support in some areas - political influence for example, but the new body could have financial independence.

I pretty sure though, that it would be a bit more complicated than this, that many other people will have a much better idea than me, and most of all I have no wish to serve on another bloody BMC working group.

I'm going to try and avoid this thread now.....

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Lets just deal with the supposedly democratic nature of the previous consultation shall we?

The BMC asked its members to decide whether they wanted it to support competition climbing as an olympic sport. They did this by sending a paid member of staff to all the area meetings to 'advise'. What this person actually did was to unashamedly argue that the BMC should support the olympic initiative.

He was supported in this by a widely circulated and obviously biased 'consultation' paper that was so one sided that the BMC ultimately felt shamed into redressing the balance by getting Ed Douglas to write a more even handed piece for Summit. If you don't think that this was the case perhaps somebody from the BMC office could post the consultation paper on here and we can all judge for ourselves whether this was a fair attempt at an open discussion.

Those opposed to the stance being pushed by some in the BMC office were not offered the chance to put their case in their own words - you say in an earlier post that nobody wanted to do this. Well that's not true, I was one of the most vocal volunteers in the BMC calling for a wider consultation of the whole membership and I would have been very willing to make the case. I wasn't offered the chance to do so.

One of the arguments put by Graeme Alderson, who at the time was acting as a BMC employee, to our NW area meetings was that the UK competition teams might be booted out of the international circuit and that a major UK competition planned for the coming year would have to be cancelled if we didn't support the proposals straight away. Although this was probably nonsense - its hard to imagine an international organisation trying to win olympic acceptance for their sport wanting to expel one of its largest member countries in the lead up to their campaign - it was noevertheless an effective scare tactic that influenced some people who didn't want to risk cocking up a series of events that some people were keen to be involved in.

In the face of this pressure and with repeated assurances that the broader issues could be discussed and worked out later, the majority of people attending area meetings did give their 'in principle' approval to the 'idea' of the BMC supporting Olympic climbing.

But what they didn't do was commit the BMC to being the organisation that would take the lead role in achieving this. Indeed, in September 2009 the BMC National Council noted the position of the NW Area:

The North West Area feels that, over the longer term, the BMC must address the issue of whether the interests of competition climbers and the broader BMC membership might be better served by the creation of an autonomous or semi-autonomous body that would represent competition climbing and that would have responsibility for pursuing the goal of Olympic participation.

and

After discussion it was concluded (by the National Council) that this was an issue to be considered at a future date

Well, given the fact that the prospect of climbing as an olympic sport has just become a significantly more real and the fact that Dave Turnbull, the BMC CEO, is now flagging up the probability that this will involve spending a very great deal of money I would argue that the 'future date' at which this needs to be discussed is now.

In reply to Iain Peters:
But 25,000 BMC members only get one copy of Summit a year, and have full voting rights, so would need to be sent the papers. Kerching.

And if it wasn't a freepost reply you wouldn't even get 200 replies. Kerching.

And you are already calling on the BMC to ignore the results of one poll in order to hold another. Kerplunk.

In reply to colin struthers:
IF the BMC is planning to be the lead organisation in lobbying the IOC and IF they were planning to spend a very great deal of money on this, then you have my full backing to remind Dave and Rab that this was not was agreed in 2009.

I'm pretty sure that's not what is being planned though

In reply to Chris the Tall:

As I have previously said, it is the IFSC that is doing the lobbying....

n reply to colin struthers:

I thought I explained the process and exactly what happened previously.

The BMC are not taking the lead, never took the lead and this was never the idea, we supported the IFSC for the reasons and went about this as I explained above.

In reply to Iain McKenzie:

I don't think you were at this meeting were you?

In reply to colin struthers: I attended one of them, not sure which one you were referring to, again as I explains in my previous post

In reply to colin struthers: Why are you whinging? If people want to climb competively let them. Whether the BMC run a competitive organisation or not who cares? They're still going to carry out their other duties.

In reply to FreshSlate:

If people want to climb competively let them.

What on earth makes you think I want to stop them? Certainly nothing I have said on this thread

Whether the BMC run a competitive organisation or not who cares?

This thread now has 6,500+ hits so evidently rather a lot of people

They're still going to carry out their other duties.

To the samme degree / with the same focus / with the same resources?

And anyway how is it that you know this for a fact when everyone else is having to make a prediction based on evidence and reasoned argument? You should try it yourself.

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's very complicated isn't it? But perhaps some people think that the BMC shouldn't spend lots of the subs on something that only 3 of their members actually do.

In reply to Sir Chasm: It's your money and your choice whether to hand it over to the BMC. You don't like it, you don't have to pay up, simples. Create your own Climbing Access and Conservation Only society if you think thats what everyone wants.

Colin:

>To the samme degree / with the same focus / with the same resources?

>And anyway how is it that you know this for a fact when everyone else is having to make a prediction based on evidence and reasoned argument? You should try it yourself.

Climbing in the olympics will increase publicity for the BMC and generate more subs therefore there will be more resources avaible to the BMC? Funding from the government as well? I don't see how the BMC are going to end up with less resources? Haven't they already said they'll continue working just as much towards what you're after? Don't see the problem.

In reply to UKC News:

This from the History section of the IFSC website:

"In 2006, the UIAA decided to cease governance of Competition Climbing and to support the creation of an independent International Federation to govern this sport."

If the UIAA decided against direct involvement, perhaps the BMC should help set up an independent BFSC?

In reply to FreshSlate: You're right, the majority of people in the bmc are much more interested in 3 competition climbers than in access and conservation.

In reply to Iain Peters:
It has been said that "history belongs to those who write it"-perhaps true in this case?

In reply to UKC News: If the detail of how much direct expenditure, officer time and associated administrative costs were involved in supporting competition climbing was known to ordinary BMC members then, in my opinion, a clear majority would probably want this activity to either cease or to be the responsibility of a separate organisation that raised its own funds.

The reason the competition climbing lobby don't want the whole BMC membership to be informed and consulted is precisely because they fear that this would be the outcome.

All the protestations that it would be too costly/difficult to do or that a proper consultation has already taken place or that it is obvious that members support the olympic proposal so there's no need to ask them are dishonest bluster generated by a minority vested interest group who see the unfair subsidy they receive from ordinary members under threat.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I never said that, and why this number '3', do you not feel your point stands up if you actually use real numbers?

In reply to FreshSlate: Well, you explicitly said that if bmc members didn't like what their subs were being spent on they could piss off and start their own organisation. You might have meant something different I suppose.

In reply to colin struthers:

Questioning the integrity of those who disagree with you is a desperate measure.

For the record I don't have any vested interests - I don't work in the climbing industry and I certainly don't have any hope of competing. I am a very ordinary member, one who believes that by far the most important task for the BMC is it's access work. It's just I also feel this is best served by representing all climbers, and not splintering.

If you feel the sudden need for the BMC to hold an EGM on this issue, go and look it up the constitution. Better still, save the BMC some money and put forward a resolution at the AGM. You'll certainly get some support from the usual suspects and it should be good entertainment.

But if you suceed in ripping the organisation apart, and driving away half the volunteers with crass accusations about self-interest, then don't expect the BMC to be in a stronger position to fit the access battles.

In reply to UKC News:

This has clearly generated quite a bit of feedback so I thought it might be useful to clarify things from here on:

1.) The BMC is formally in favour of the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport; this will agreed by ther BMC National Council in 2009.

2.) Sport climbing has been shortlisted for 2020; although it may be a long shot my view is that the BMC as the National body for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers (including competition climbers and the National Team) has a responsibility to lead the campaign in the UK for Olympic selection.

3.) It is the IFSC (the world body for competition climbing) that will have the primary role in engaging with the IOC and making the case. The BMC will be able to influence and support the IFSC through the UK representatives on IFSC Commissions e.g. Graeme Alderson.

4.) The question of who would administer competition climbing if the Olympic bid were successful is one for the future. My view is that it would be best kept within the BMC rather than setting up a seperate organisation. If climbing did get into the Olympics its quite likely that extra Government support would become available. This would enable the BMC to do the necessary work without jeopardising our core access, conservation and environmental work.

5.) In order to make a decison on 4.) above the BMC would need a great deal more information than we have now. Over the next 12 months we will be in much better position to judge what is involved, what is needed, the costs and organisational implications. Once we have this information the final decision will rest with the National Council.

6.) The BMC is a broad church which represents a very wide range of climbing and mountain based activities; it is also very clear about its core work and priorities. Any future decision on who should administer competition climbing will be based on an careful assessment of whether we could take on the administration of an Olympic sport whilst maintaining our essential core work for members.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Hi Dave

Good to see you back in the discussion. In order for this debate to be well informed perhaps you provide us with the info that I mentionned in a previous post when I asked

"how much direct expenditure, officer time and associated administrative costs were involved in supporting competition climbing"?

In reply to colin struthers:

I'll get back to you in more detail tomorrow Colin but roughly speaking the net cost of competitions admin to the BMC in 2010 (after the allocation of overheads, grant income and other income) was c.£80k. In terms of staff time I'd say we spend a total of c. 1 - 1.5 person years on comps work.

Dave

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I certainly don't want the BMC ripped apart and I don't believe it will be unless the more extreme views on either side hold sway. Far from it, I strongly believe that a properly constituted independent body set up specifically to promote, develop and support competitive climbing at all levels, would work, especially if Olympic status is achieved. If the UIAA and IFSC have managed it along with other national organizations (c/f Jim Titt's posting above) then why can't it happen here?

Up until now the BMC have successfully helped to establish indoor competitive climbing in this country: they currently possess the staff and expertise to run the sport at its current level, but the problem is that moving up to a fully fledge Olympic level will take a huge effort (The CEO's words) and a considerable amount of money, which ultimately will have to come either from the taxpayer major sponsorship and, if present policy is maintained, subscriptions.

Now the BMC does, I believe, carry a substantial cash reserve, enough at least to consider an ill-advised loan to a club for the purchase of a new hut. That idea failed partly due to strong reservations rightly expressed by members of the BMC, doubtless the office phone lines and inboxes were red hot when the news got out!

Why not use some of those reserves in the form of a fixed period loan to the new BFSC? That would kickstart the whole process, enable those who are at present employed by the membership to continue in post, fund new initiatives and lobbying and the setting up of an independent management c/w with its own CEO. The skills and enthusiasm for competitive climbing already exist and individual athletes could get some of the funding they desperately need. Should the forthcoming IFSC bid fail then there would still be a strong governing body in place to ensure that the momentum for Olympic status were maintained.

Naturally there would be a risk that the BMC investment might go pear-shaped and the Federation would have to default on the loan, but hell we're all climbers so what's wrong with a bit of risk? Anyway part of the deal would be that the NC would have a seat on any board that was set up. The competition lobby would get the essential support they require from the BMC, money that at present sits uselessly in some savings account earning minimal interest for the membership, but champagne and Porsches for the fat cats who run the funds.

As a BMC member who would rather watch paint dry than an indoor climbing competition I would cheerfully vote for such an initiative, wish all our athletes well and hope that my representative body would then focus on the issues that really matter to me and thousands of others - maintaining our freedom to climb whether sport, bouldering, trad, ski mountaineering etc.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I suspect that's exactly what people did think they were doing when they set up the BMC in 1944, why should we have to do it again? Its not the access and conservation lobby that's changed the game.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thanks Dave

This is a useful start and it will be interesting to see the more detailed information.

It would be helpful to have the gross cost(not just the net cost) for all competition based activity alongside a breakdown of any income recieved specifically to support competitions.

I understand from comments Graeme Alderson made back in 2009 that government funding for competitions granted to the BMC was provided specifically to promote popular participation in competitions at all levels. Is this right and is it still the case? If so, it will be useful to also have a breakdown of how competition funding was spent i.e. what proportion was attributable to popular participation in competition climbing and what proportion went to supporting the elite national teams. To appreciate the significance of this division of expenditure we obviously need to know how many members of these elite teams there actually are.

If the gross cost for competition climbing as a whole is greater than the income received for competitions (as I think you indicated in a previous article) then presumably you can also advise on which elements of the BMCs income are currently being used to subsidise competitions.

Obviously the gross cost would include all competition specific expenditure as well as an apportionment of central costs, associated recruitment, salaries and their on costs, materials and equipment, publicity and advertising etc etc etc.

Since this whole issue is clearly a matter of some dispute it would help to avoid future controversy if the figures provided are as accurate an apportionment of the true total cost as we can get - I appreciate that internal accountancy is not your primary responsibility and therefore it might be worth asking David Lanceley (BMC Treasurer) to look over the figures before you circulate them more widely.

I think it would be better to take the extra time to do this even if it means you can't respond to the request for info straight away.

Thanks for your help

Colin

In reply to colin struthers:

If you want this level of detail Colin I suggest you come into the office.

Dave

In reply to UKC News: I`m not reading all 200 odd posts, but I really hope this doesn`t happen. As a very active climber in Northumberland and elsewhere for 20 years all I can see is the crags getting trashed beyond belief, bowden doors has slowly been destroyed, half of the routes are so worn they are not doable like they used to be, look at the plantation, even the grit is polished, land owners don`t really want the small numbers of climbers stomping over their land as it is, never mind every man and his dog.

In reply to dan:

What an terribly selfish post. How dare other climbers and future generation of new clinbers visit crags and ruin your day.

Of course, as a very active climber aren't you partly responsible for the problems you decry

In reply to jimtitt: The OWK was set up because the Austrian Govt told the OEAV to give up competitions once the IFSC seperated from the UIAA.

In reply to pec: The reason for the 'S' in IFSC was to appease the UIAA once comps split from the UIAA. And because the various abbreviations that might have been applicable were already taken eg IFC, ICC

In reply to colin struthers:

I said no such thing at any NW Area meeting in 2008 or 2009 and indeed ever as I left the BMC's employ in July 2007. The IFSC was formed in Feb 2007 and I know that I didn't go to a NW meeting inbetween March and July 2007 . Please try to get some of your facts correct Colin as it casts doubt on the accuracy of your other statements.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: "or indeed ever" at a NW Area meeting

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Apologies, I've obviously confused you with somebody else from the BMC office. I will check back and get this right.

However, the substance of what was actually said by the BMC officer attending is correct

In reply to UKC News:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Z7Z3599