This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm curious as to why some people claim climbing is not a sport.
It's certainly very different to traditional sports like football, tennis or running. But nevertheless its widely recognized as an extreme sport. Compared to other such sports like BASE jumping, white water canoeing, or surfing it seems like a very similar activity.
The BBC description of extreme sports seems to perfectly describe climbing:
Extreme sports are about exhilaration, skill and danger. They do not normally involve teams and there are very few rules. People who take part use their skills and experience to control the risks. That control is what makes them sports and not just dangerous behaviour.
Another question is why does this even matter? We all know what climbing is and whether or not its categorized as a sport or something else wouldn't change anything we do when we go climbing. But to some this distinction seems important so I'm interested to know why that is.
It's certainly very different to traditional sports like football, tennis or running. But nevertheless its widely recognized as an extreme sport. Compared to other such sports like BASE jumping, white water canoeing, or surfing it seems like a very similar activity.
The BBC description of extreme sports seems to perfectly describe climbing:
Extreme sports are about exhilaration, skill and danger. They do not normally involve teams and there are very few rules. People who take part use their skills and experience to control the risks. That control is what makes them sports and not just dangerous behaviour.
Another question is why does this even matter? We all know what climbing is and whether or not its categorized as a sport or something else wouldn't change anything we do when we go climbing. But to some this distinction seems important so I'm interested to know why that is.
4
13
1
In reply to stp:
If you play football or rugby etc, you are always playing against another side, and the goal is to beat that team. Running and other athletic sports are more individualistic, but the goal is the same - to beat your opponents. 99% of climbing is not you versus x, it is simply a personal challenge against the rock. I wouldn't claim that kayaking, surfing, or BASE jumping are 'sports' either - and very often, people climb (or go kayaking, etc) simply for pleasure on routes that will in no way challenge them. To describe climbing as a sport is to deny that the vast majority of climbers do not view it as a sport with the attendant requirement to win or lose, but a highly enjoyable and challenging (physical) activity.
If you play football or rugby etc, you are always playing against another side, and the goal is to beat that team. Running and other athletic sports are more individualistic, but the goal is the same - to beat your opponents. 99% of climbing is not you versus x, it is simply a personal challenge against the rock. I wouldn't claim that kayaking, surfing, or BASE jumping are 'sports' either - and very often, people climb (or go kayaking, etc) simply for pleasure on routes that will in no way challenge them. To describe climbing as a sport is to deny that the vast majority of climbers do not view it as a sport with the attendant requirement to win or lose, but a highly enjoyable and challenging (physical) activity.
9
1
In reply to marsbar:
I agree it shouldn't be an Olympic sport, but then I don't think football, tennis and even gymnastics should be Olympic sports. Not being an Olympic sport isn't the same as not being a sport though!
I agree it shouldn't be an Olympic sport, but then I don't think football, tennis and even gymnastics should be Olympic sports. Not being an Olympic sport isn't the same as not being a sport though!
2
In reply to whenry:
There are competitive sports and non-competitive sports. For most of us, climbing is a non-competitive sport. And that's not denying anything.
> To describe climbing as a sport is to deny that the vast majority of climbers do not view it as a sport with the attendant requirement to win or lose, but a highly enjoyable and challenging (physical) activity.
There are competitive sports and non-competitive sports. For most of us, climbing is a non-competitive sport. And that's not denying anything.
4
In reply to whenry:
I agree that climbing is not you directly competing against another person. I think even in formal climbing competitions the focus is against the route rather than the other competitors since you can never see what they're doing anyway and of course it makes no difference.
But it seems aspect of winning or losing in conventional sports is simply the equivalent of success or failure in climbing.
I'd be surprised if the vast majority of climbers didn't view it as a sport if only because its so widely seen as such everywhere else. But I suspect there are no statistics on this so we don't really know.
I agree that one can go climbing on easy routes that are not very challenging but I think taking it easy and playing just for pleasure is possible in all sports. One could play a round of golf on one's own, just to get out in the fresh air and enjoy the sunshine but that doesn't mean that golf ceases to be a sport at such times.
I agree that climbing is not you directly competing against another person. I think even in formal climbing competitions the focus is against the route rather than the other competitors since you can never see what they're doing anyway and of course it makes no difference.
But it seems aspect of winning or losing in conventional sports is simply the equivalent of success or failure in climbing.
I'd be surprised if the vast majority of climbers didn't view it as a sport if only because its so widely seen as such everywhere else. But I suspect there are no statistics on this so we don't really know.
I agree that one can go climbing on easy routes that are not very challenging but I think taking it easy and playing just for pleasure is possible in all sports. One could play a round of golf on one's own, just to get out in the fresh air and enjoy the sunshine but that doesn't mean that golf ceases to be a sport at such times.
In reply to stp:
I don't think it's a sport because I think formalised head-to-head competition is an intrinsic part of sport (burning your mates off bouldering doesn't count, nor does mincing about on plastic). But if it was a purely semantic argument I wouldn't care what others call it. If they want to consider it a sport, a hobby, a pastime, a way of life, a divine calling, whatever, it's no skin off my nose
But the reason I think it does matter is that I don't want all the trappings that sports seem to inevitably acquire and seem to be attaching themselves to climbing. I'm talking about the baggage that grows up with the administrators, the burgeoning 'blazers' ('probably 'fleeces' in our case) who 'run' any sport, the governing body, the hierarchy, the junkets and the ever-increasing cost of paying for it. A small BMC is probably a necessary evil since we need someone to fight for access and the gear testing and the insurance is useful but that's it. I'd like to keep it as tiny as possible. Screw the international junketing, the competition teams and the marketing and screw paying for it through mandatory levies as part of my club subscriptions. I thoroughly resent paying for people to swan off to comps and world cups at my expense. If they want to do it, that's fine. But keep your sticky mitts out of my pocket please. I don't give a tuppenny toss about podium placings on bits of plastic and especially screw the idea of climbing in the Olympics. That's just a wet dream for the fleeces and a nightmare for climbing.
Of course I could oppose this by campaigning through my club and BMC area meetings and national conferences and AGMs ....which is precisely the sort of crap I want to avoid by not being part of a 'sport' at all. So instead I pay up through my club subs and try not to think about it while the 'fleeces' squander my money on this flummery they think is so damned important.
I don't think it's a sport because I think formalised head-to-head competition is an intrinsic part of sport (burning your mates off bouldering doesn't count, nor does mincing about on plastic). But if it was a purely semantic argument I wouldn't care what others call it. If they want to consider it a sport, a hobby, a pastime, a way of life, a divine calling, whatever, it's no skin off my nose
But the reason I think it does matter is that I don't want all the trappings that sports seem to inevitably acquire and seem to be attaching themselves to climbing. I'm talking about the baggage that grows up with the administrators, the burgeoning 'blazers' ('probably 'fleeces' in our case) who 'run' any sport, the governing body, the hierarchy, the junkets and the ever-increasing cost of paying for it. A small BMC is probably a necessary evil since we need someone to fight for access and the gear testing and the insurance is useful but that's it. I'd like to keep it as tiny as possible. Screw the international junketing, the competition teams and the marketing and screw paying for it through mandatory levies as part of my club subscriptions. I thoroughly resent paying for people to swan off to comps and world cups at my expense. If they want to do it, that's fine. But keep your sticky mitts out of my pocket please. I don't give a tuppenny toss about podium placings on bits of plastic and especially screw the idea of climbing in the Olympics. That's just a wet dream for the fleeces and a nightmare for climbing.
Of course I could oppose this by campaigning through my club and BMC area meetings and national conferences and AGMs ....which is precisely the sort of crap I want to avoid by not being part of a 'sport' at all. So instead I pay up through my club subs and try not to think about it while the 'fleeces' squander my money on this flummery they think is so damned important.
16
7
In reply to petestack:
The dictionary defines sport as being "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Doesn't sound like your average day out on the crag.
The dictionary defines sport as being "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Doesn't sound like your average day out on the crag.
1
In reply to stp:
If you're playing golf, even just to get out in the sun, you're still competing against others.
I think though, perhaps even more importantly, if you take part in something like golf or rugby, which are unquestionably recognised as sports, you have to abide by a number of rules. There are no rules that one has to abide by in climbing, and climbing is all the better for that.
> I agree that one can go climbing on easy routes that are not very challenging but I think taking it easy and playing just for pleasure is possible in all sports. One could play a round of golf on one's own, just to get out in the fresh air and enjoy the sunshine but that doesn't mean that golf ceases to be a sport at such times.
If you're playing golf, even just to get out in the sun, you're still competing against others.
I think though, perhaps even more importantly, if you take part in something like golf or rugby, which are unquestionably recognised as sports, you have to abide by a number of rules. There are no rules that one has to abide by in climbing, and climbing is all the better for that.
2
In reply to stp:
>But nevertheless its widely recognized as an extreme sport.
It's because using the expression 'extreme sport' in any kind of serious way instantly identifies the speaker as a total w*nker.
HTH.
jcm
>But nevertheless its widely recognized as an extreme sport.
It's because using the expression 'extreme sport' in any kind of serious way instantly identifies the speaker as a total w*nker.
HTH.
jcm
22
1
In reply to stp:
But more seriously, as whenry says, in climbing one does not compete against others, and there are no formal rules. It's not a sport for the same reason as, say, bull-fighting is not.
jcm
But more seriously, as whenry says, in climbing one does not compete against others, and there are no formal rules. It's not a sport for the same reason as, say, bull-fighting is not.
jcm
In reply to petestack:
Wrong, by definition a sport is competitive. it is one of the few set in stone parameters that absolutely define a sport. you can participate in a sport in a non competitive way (ie training or recreation), but at that moment in time your are not doing 'sport' you are 'training' or 'recreating'. equally something which is a past time or recreational activity (ie climbing) can be done in a competitive manner, making the situation 'sport'. I suppose in essence it is the situation rather than the activity itself which distinguishes between a sport and non sports, and it is fairly easy to subjectively draw the line between things which are done the vast majority of time by the vast majority of participants in a sporting manner and things which aren't.
to the op - yes climbing is very much an extreme sport, but extreme sports by their very own definition aren't actually sports (though they can be done as sport). extreme sports are technically classified as Outdoor adventurous activities (OAA's).
why does it matter? unless your sitting an A-level exam it doesn't...but we climbers like to argue, especially via UKC
> There are competitive sports and non-competitive sports. For most of us, climbing is a non-competitive sport. And that's not denying anything.
Wrong, by definition a sport is competitive. it is one of the few set in stone parameters that absolutely define a sport. you can participate in a sport in a non competitive way (ie training or recreation), but at that moment in time your are not doing 'sport' you are 'training' or 'recreating'. equally something which is a past time or recreational activity (ie climbing) can be done in a competitive manner, making the situation 'sport'. I suppose in essence it is the situation rather than the activity itself which distinguishes between a sport and non sports, and it is fairly easy to subjectively draw the line between things which are done the vast majority of time by the vast majority of participants in a sporting manner and things which aren't.
to the op - yes climbing is very much an extreme sport, but extreme sports by their very own definition aren't actually sports (though they can be done as sport). extreme sports are technically classified as Outdoor adventurous activities (OAA's).
why does it matter? unless your sitting an A-level exam it doesn't...but we climbers like to argue, especially via UKC
3
2
In reply to stp:
see my previous post, technically yes it does, that would be recreation.
> I agree that one can go climbing on easy routes that are not very challenging but I think taking it easy and playing just for pleasure is possible in all sports. One could play a round of golf on one's own, just to get out in the fresh air and enjoy the sunshine but that doesn't mean that golf ceases to be a sport at such times.
see my previous post, technically yes it does, that would be recreation.
In reply to whenry:
Depends which dictionary!
In reply to Webster:
So arguable at the very least...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sport
* a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job: Football, basketball, and hockey are all team sports. I enjoy winter sports like skiing and skating.
* UK all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment: She used to do/play a lot of sport when she was younger.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sport
1. an individual or group activity pursued for exercise or pleasure, often involving the testing of physical capabilities and taking the form of a competitive game such as football, tennis, etc
2. such activities considered collectively
3. any particular pastime indulged in for pleasure
4. the pleasure derived from a pastime, esp hunting, shooting, or fishing
> The dictionary defines sport as being "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Doesn't sound like your average day out on the crag.
Depends which dictionary!
In reply to Webster:
> Wrong, by definition a sport is competitive. it is one of the few set in stone parameters that absolutely define a sport.
So arguable at the very least...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sport
* a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job: Football, basketball, and hockey are all team sports. I enjoy winter sports like skiing and skating.
* UK all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment: She used to do/play a lot of sport when she was younger.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sport
1. an individual or group activity pursued for exercise or pleasure, often involving the testing of physical capabilities and taking the form of a competitive game such as football, tennis, etc
2. such activities considered collectively
3. any particular pastime indulged in for pleasure
4. the pleasure derived from a pastime, esp hunting, shooting, or fishing
1
In reply to whenry:
It is possible to play golf on your own. Even when (during my misspent youth) I used to play with others I always felt I was competing against myself (via the par of the course) rather against my companions.
> If you're playing golf, even just to get out in the sun, you're still competing against others.
It is possible to play golf on your own. Even when (during my misspent youth) I used to play with others I always felt I was competing against myself (via the par of the course) rather against my companions.
1
In reply to petestack:
im not entirely sure what side you are arguing, if any?
getting a dictionary definition isn't very helpful (or valid). as you have shown every dictionary will have a different definition and besides they are definitions of a word rather than a concept. plus they are nearly all wrong. sport has no requirement for physical exertion - e.g darts, and even in some circumstances chess.
a rough 'textbook' definition of sport is - competitive, defined set of rules officiated by a third party and overseen by a national/international governing body. a defined 'playing area' or time/distance limits.
so going for a run isn't doing 'sport' but running a marathon is 'sport' as there is a designated 26 mile course and somebody crosses the line first to win. all recognised team sports have a set 'pitch' with uniform dimensions and time limits.
A bouldering competition is 'sport' - it has a winner, it has a defined 'pitch' (the specific problem or block), it has a time limit, it has judges and a governing body, it has set rules (static starts, no dabbing the mat etc).
Going bouldering at stanage plantation is not a sport, it is recreation, it has none of the above, it is just man vs rock.
the vast majority of climbing is done in the non sporting sense so it is perfectly fair to classify it as not a sport.
im not entirely sure what side you are arguing, if any?
getting a dictionary definition isn't very helpful (or valid). as you have shown every dictionary will have a different definition and besides they are definitions of a word rather than a concept. plus they are nearly all wrong. sport has no requirement for physical exertion - e.g darts, and even in some circumstances chess.
a rough 'textbook' definition of sport is - competitive, defined set of rules officiated by a third party and overseen by a national/international governing body. a defined 'playing area' or time/distance limits.
so going for a run isn't doing 'sport' but running a marathon is 'sport' as there is a designated 26 mile course and somebody crosses the line first to win. all recognised team sports have a set 'pitch' with uniform dimensions and time limits.
A bouldering competition is 'sport' - it has a winner, it has a defined 'pitch' (the specific problem or block), it has a time limit, it has judges and a governing body, it has set rules (static starts, no dabbing the mat etc).
Going bouldering at stanage plantation is not a sport, it is recreation, it has none of the above, it is just man vs rock.
the vast majority of climbing is done in the non sporting sense so it is perfectly fair to classify it as not a sport.
1
In reply to whenry:
The free dictionary defines sport as:
"An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively."
There are undoubtedly different definitions.
I think climbing does have its own rules for its different games (or 'customs' if you prefer). If I want to free climb a route then I can't hang or pull on gear. In aid climbing existing routes you can't just place bolts when you feel like it. To do so is cheating akin to picking up one's golf ball and moving it to a better position.
However I'm still wondering if there's a reason why some people bring this up at all. In that recent interview with the young welsh climber he refers to climbing as his hobby. I've never seen anyone pick up on comments like that and say 'climbing is not a hobby it's a sport'. I'm not that bothered how people refer to it and I don't think most people are. Is it mere pedantry that people bring this up or is there an underlying reason?
The free dictionary defines sport as:
"An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively."
There are undoubtedly different definitions.
I think climbing does have its own rules for its different games (or 'customs' if you prefer). If I want to free climb a route then I can't hang or pull on gear. In aid climbing existing routes you can't just place bolts when you feel like it. To do so is cheating akin to picking up one's golf ball and moving it to a better position.
However I'm still wondering if there's a reason why some people bring this up at all. In that recent interview with the young welsh climber he refers to climbing as his hobby. I've never seen anyone pick up on comments like that and say 'climbing is not a hobby it's a sport'. I'm not that bothered how people refer to it and I don't think most people are. Is it mere pedantry that people bring this up or is there an underlying reason?
In reply to stp:
I took up climbing in 1965 and one of the main reasons was, that it was not considered by most to be a sport. Sport to me involves winners and losers and the climbing that I love and participate in does not. Recent developments, indoor climbing, competitions, speed climbing, serious bouldering etc. have however obviously made into one but I have absolutely no interest and ignore all references to these disciplines. Like others to some extent I object to my BMC contribution going towards financing these activities but not enough to make a song and dance about it. I also stopped buying climbing magazines many years ago because I felt as if the focus was changing and, with a few exceptions, they did not represent MY hobby as well as older magazines, like Mountain, Rocksport, Crags etc. did. Today's magazines are very polished but less inclusive and much more commercial and elitist.
If you buy into all of this you are undoubtedly participating in a sport. I don't.
Al
I took up climbing in 1965 and one of the main reasons was, that it was not considered by most to be a sport. Sport to me involves winners and losers and the climbing that I love and participate in does not. Recent developments, indoor climbing, competitions, speed climbing, serious bouldering etc. have however obviously made into one but I have absolutely no interest and ignore all references to these disciplines. Like others to some extent I object to my BMC contribution going towards financing these activities but not enough to make a song and dance about it. I also stopped buying climbing magazines many years ago because I felt as if the focus was changing and, with a few exceptions, they did not represent MY hobby as well as older magazines, like Mountain, Rocksport, Crags etc. did. Today's magazines are very polished but less inclusive and much more commercial and elitist.
If you buy into all of this you are undoubtedly participating in a sport. I don't.
Al
4
In reply to GridNorth:
Even if some aspects of climbing could be described as a 'sport', it's much much more than that. I'd argue that it's all the other things that make it so special.
Even if some aspects of climbing could be described as a 'sport', it's much much more than that. I'd argue that it's all the other things that make it so special.
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Agreed but if all you do is indoors, competitions etc. (and you do see a lot of that these days) you are definitely participating in a sport.
Al
Agreed but if all you do is indoors, competitions etc. (and you do see a lot of that these days) you are definitely participating in a sport.
Al
In reply to GridNorth:
Well, I used to use climbing walls in the winter, and yes it was more like a sport, but it was basically training for real rock and the far richer outdoor experience (for me).
Well, I used to use climbing walls in the winter, and yes it was more like a sport, but it was basically training for real rock and the far richer outdoor experience (for me).
In reply to stp:
IMO the answer is yes and no. Climbing comps, with all the associated set up is a sporting event, based on climbing, bimbling off to climb on a crag with your mates is not, I would suggest, whether you climb VDiff or E10. It is a hobby involving physical activity. I would draw a parallel with cycling; me going or a 10 mile sunday morning jaunt with the kids is not sport. What Chris Froome does on the roads, or Jason Kenny does on the track undoubtedly is sport. I wonder whether cyclists have the same debates?
I can't help smiling a bit at the assuptions above regarding the funding for the BMC competition teams, and would ask those people what level of funding / subsidy they think the competition squads receive?
As a clue, the comp officer is funded by Sport England, and the VAST majority of the expenses come out of the competitors own pockets. But i'd love to hear your honest opinions as to the amount that goes to competitions.........
And from the other side, there are an ever increasing number of competition / indoor only climbers who may or may not resent their BMC subs being used to subsidise access / club membership / huts etc that they will likely never use......
Ian Walton
Chair BMC comps
IMO the answer is yes and no. Climbing comps, with all the associated set up is a sporting event, based on climbing, bimbling off to climb on a crag with your mates is not, I would suggest, whether you climb VDiff or E10. It is a hobby involving physical activity. I would draw a parallel with cycling; me going or a 10 mile sunday morning jaunt with the kids is not sport. What Chris Froome does on the roads, or Jason Kenny does on the track undoubtedly is sport. I wonder whether cyclists have the same debates?
I can't help smiling a bit at the assuptions above regarding the funding for the BMC competition teams, and would ask those people what level of funding / subsidy they think the competition squads receive?
As a clue, the comp officer is funded by Sport England, and the VAST majority of the expenses come out of the competitors own pockets. But i'd love to hear your honest opinions as to the amount that goes to competitions.........
And from the other side, there are an ever increasing number of competition / indoor only climbers who may or may not resent their BMC subs being used to subsidise access / club membership / huts etc that they will likely never use......
Ian Walton
Chair BMC comps
6
In reply to Ian W:
I'd fully agree that indoor climbing competitions are a sport, and should be recognised as such. I'd even like to see them in the Olympics as it would improve the funding of the "sport".
But equally outdoor climbing that isn't competitive as such could still be considered a sport just like skiing for fun counts as such.
I'd fully agree that indoor climbing competitions are a sport, and should be recognised as such. I'd even like to see them in the Olympics as it would improve the funding of the "sport".
But equally outdoor climbing that isn't competitive as such could still be considered a sport just like skiing for fun counts as such.
1
In reply to Ian W:
I have no idea. So none of my annual contribution goes towards funding competitions in any way shape or form?
Surely these are the raison d'etre of the BMC and the reason it was founded. They have joined THAT organisation which already existed. No one ever asked me, as a long standing member if I agreed to supporting these evolving disciplines.
I don't have strong feelings about this but if I were asked I would not want any of my contribution to go towards funding any of these new activities.
Al
> As a clue, the comp officer is funded by Sport England, and the VAST majority of the expenses come out of the competitors own pockets. But i'd love to hear your honest opinions as to the amount that goes to competitions.........
> And from the other side, there are an ever increasing number of competition / indoor only climbers who may or may not resent their BMC subs being used to subsidise access / club membership / huts etc that they will likely never use......
I have no idea. So none of my annual contribution goes towards funding competitions in any way shape or form?
Surely these are the raison d'etre of the BMC and the reason it was founded. They have joined THAT organisation which already existed. No one ever asked me, as a long standing member if I agreed to supporting these evolving disciplines.
I don't have strong feelings about this but if I were asked I would not want any of my contribution to go towards funding any of these new activities.
Al
Post edited at 13:09
2
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Is it time to dust off the old Hemingway chestnut?
There are only four 'sports', boxing, motor racing, bull fighting* and mountain climbing. The rest are merely games. (I paraphrase).
And I do totally endorse your view of 'extreme sports' as the sort of thing total dicks claim to be undertaking when everyone around them is just 'having fun'.
*I just love auto-correct. When I first put that in it came out as 'bull frighting', which I suppose is pretty on the money.
Is it time to dust off the old Hemingway chestnut?
There are only four 'sports', boxing, motor racing, bull fighting* and mountain climbing. The rest are merely games. (I paraphrase).
And I do totally endorse your view of 'extreme sports' as the sort of thing total dicks claim to be undertaking when everyone around them is just 'having fun'.
*I just love auto-correct. When I first put that in it came out as 'bull frighting', which I suppose is pretty on the money.
Post edited at 13:23
1
In reply to GridNorth:
In my humble opinion the real raison d'etre behind the founding of the BMC was to draw the expertise of the major clubs together to inform the training of mountain warfare.
> Surely these are the raison d'etre of the BMC and the reason it was founded.
In my humble opinion the real raison d'etre behind the founding of the BMC was to draw the expertise of the major clubs together to inform the training of mountain warfare.
In reply to Ian W:
l
So amaze us. How much does go from BMC funds to comps? And not just in direct money but also apportioning overheads, officers' time travel exes etc.
l
> I can't help smiling a bit at the assuptions above regarding the funding for the BMC competition teams, and would ask those people what level of funding / subsidy they think the competition squads receive?
> As a clue, the comp officer is funded by Sport England, and the VAST majority of the expenses come out of the competitors own pockets.
So amaze us. How much does go from BMC funds to comps? And not just in direct money but also apportioning overheads, officers' time travel exes etc.
“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.”
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
So, basically, you think the BMC should only spend it's funds on what YOU specifically approve of. Tell you what, why not start your own organisation that aims to do just that, and see how much funds you attract. Maybe call it the 'ee the world today bumblies mountaineering association'.
So, basically, you think the BMC should only spend it's funds on what YOU specifically approve of. Tell you what, why not start your own organisation that aims to do just that, and see how much funds you attract. Maybe call it the 'ee the world today bumblies mountaineering association'.
1
In reply to Helen Bach:
It's a thought. Or I suppose since the bumblies were here first perhaps the newcomers, instead of hijacking an existing organisation might start their own, oh I don't know, perhaps called something like the British Mincing Around on Plastic and Pretending It's Proper Climbing Council'?
On a more serious note the BMC is involved in all sorts of stuff I'm not interested in doing (eg anything involving snow and getting cold) but I've no objection to that at all. It is, after all the British Mountaineering Council.
It's a thought. Or I suppose since the bumblies were here first perhaps the newcomers, instead of hijacking an existing organisation might start their own, oh I don't know, perhaps called something like the British Mincing Around on Plastic and Pretending It's Proper Climbing Council'?
On a more serious note the BMC is involved in all sorts of stuff I'm not interested in doing (eg anything involving snow and getting cold) but I've no objection to that at all. It is, after all the British Mountaineering Council.
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Then what you f*ck are you whinging about?
> On a more serious note the BMC is involved in all sorts of stuff I'm not interested in doing (eg anything involving snow and getting cold) but I've no objection to that at all. It is, after all the British Mountaineering Council.
Then what you f*ck are you whinging about?
In reply to Helen Bach:
Sorry. were there some big words you did not understand?
> Then what you f*ck are you whinging about?
Sorry. were there some big words you did not understand?
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
You missed out the bit where the sport governing body tells you what to do, what to wear, equipment to carry, including current membership number and ID card, without which you will be excluded from the sport along with anyone who climbs with you when you are banned.
You missed out the bit where the sport governing body tells you what to do, what to wear, equipment to carry, including current membership number and ID card, without which you will be excluded from the sport along with anyone who climbs with you when you are banned.
In reply to David Riley:
There's only so much ranting my blood pressure can stand
> You missed out the bit where the sport governing body tells you what to do, what to wear, equipment to carry, including current membership number and ID card, without which you will be excluded from the sport along with anyone who climbs with you when you are banned.
There's only so much ranting my blood pressure can stand
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
So amaze us. How much does go from BMC funds to comps? And not just in direct money but also apportioning overheads, officers' time travel exes etc.
Can't duck the question by just asking the same in reverse, Wiley. Come on, lets hear it.......
>
So amaze us. How much does go from BMC funds to comps? And not just in direct money but also apportioning overheads, officers' time travel exes etc.
Can't duck the question by just asking the same in reverse, Wiley. Come on, lets hear it.......
>
In reply to Ian W:
I've no idea and I suspect you don't either because it's all in the way you do the sums, allocate costs and juggle figures between the columns but, if it helps, as far as I'm concerned, if 1p of my money goes towards comps and associated junketing then that's 2p too much.
I've no idea and I suspect you don't either because it's all in the way you do the sums, allocate costs and juggle figures between the columns but, if it helps, as far as I'm concerned, if 1p of my money goes towards comps and associated junketing then that's 2p too much.
1
In reply to GridNorth:
I suspect the overall effect is broadly neutral, but because subs are not the totality of the BMC's income, and because the various activities / branches / areas of operation are both diverse and interdependent (a very good thing) it would be almost impossible to accurately say "competition climbing takes more than it gives" or vice versa.
I suspect the overall effect is broadly neutral, but because subs are not the totality of the BMC's income, and because the various activities / branches / areas of operation are both diverse and interdependent (a very good thing) it would be almost impossible to accurately say "competition climbing takes more than it gives" or vice versa.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
You'll have to let me know where this junketing malarkey takes place; would love to get involved........
You'll have to let me know where this junketing malarkey takes place; would love to get involved........
In reply to Ian W:
They do say Arco's very nice in August. Except it's a bit hot and 1200 comp climbers
They do say Arco's very nice in August. Except it's a bit hot and 1200 comp climbers
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I'm told Arco is nice any time of year.......
The end of Aug was the world junior championships - I suspact this is why you brought up Arco and end of Aug. I'm not aware of any junketing going on, you must enlighten me.........
I'm told Arco is nice any time of year.......
The end of Aug was the world junior championships - I suspact this is why you brought up Arco and end of Aug. I'm not aware of any junketing going on, you must enlighten me.........
In reply to stp:
And of course the answer to this is that it doesnt matter a jot, and I too am intrigued why some people actively malign comp climbing.......if you dont like it, dont do it, but dont try to stop others doing what they enjoy.
> Another question is why does this even matter? We all know what climbing is and whether or not its categorized as a sport or something else wouldn't change anything we do when we go climbing. But to some this distinction seems important so I'm interested to know why that is.
And of course the answer to this is that it doesnt matter a jot, and I too am intrigued why some people actively malign comp climbing.......if you dont like it, dont do it, but dont try to stop others doing what they enjoy.
2
In reply to Ian W:
Ian, I've never said people shouldn't do it. If it makes them happy and keeps them off the crags and out from under my feet that's fine with me. But what I don't want is for my subs to go to pay for something which I (and many others) think has got sod all to do with anything I'd consider climbing. To me comp climbing has about as much to do with real climbing as race walking has to do with hill walking and absolutely nothing to do with what I think the BMC should be doing with my money.
You've been very cagey about saying how much the BMC puts into comps, other than that you think it is less than you guess we believe. If you can say that presumably you think you do know. If yso, tell us. But make sure it's the full figure and not just the above-the-line cost.
On its website the BMC says that it 'runs' 7 national and one international comp, often with regional rounds and various categories. True, it says that sponsors contribute to this but does not say how big a proportion of the overall cost sponsorship covers. I would also repeat that BMC financial input can take many forms - simple cash is the easiest to give a figure but what about the hidden 'in kind' contributions? How much salaried time, for example, do BMC officials put into planning and administering all these events and teams? What about the time spent drumming up sponsorship? Or staf time on the website for comp related matters?
As for junketing I presume tha, coaches and managers go on some or all of these events. Does the BMC contribute to that in any way? Perhaps they are hosted by the organisers I don't know but if so presumably they have to host the foreign organisers when they come here.
So by all means go ahead and enjoy your comps. Just don't sting me for ANY of the cost please.
> I too am intrigued why some people actively malign comp climbing.......if you dont like it, dont do it, but dont try to stop others doing what they enjoy.
Ian, I've never said people shouldn't do it. If it makes them happy and keeps them off the crags and out from under my feet that's fine with me. But what I don't want is for my subs to go to pay for something which I (and many others) think has got sod all to do with anything I'd consider climbing. To me comp climbing has about as much to do with real climbing as race walking has to do with hill walking and absolutely nothing to do with what I think the BMC should be doing with my money.
You've been very cagey about saying how much the BMC puts into comps, other than that you think it is less than you guess we believe. If you can say that presumably you think you do know. If yso, tell us. But make sure it's the full figure and not just the above-the-line cost.
On its website the BMC says that it 'runs' 7 national and one international comp, often with regional rounds and various categories. True, it says that sponsors contribute to this but does not say how big a proportion of the overall cost sponsorship covers. I would also repeat that BMC financial input can take many forms - simple cash is the easiest to give a figure but what about the hidden 'in kind' contributions? How much salaried time, for example, do BMC officials put into planning and administering all these events and teams? What about the time spent drumming up sponsorship? Or staf time on the website for comp related matters?
As for junketing I presume tha, coaches and managers go on some or all of these events. Does the BMC contribute to that in any way? Perhaps they are hosted by the organisers I don't know but if so presumably they have to host the foreign organisers when they come here.
So by all means go ahead and enjoy your comps. Just don't sting me for ANY of the cost please.
In reply to whenry:
I think that slalom kayakers, racing kayakers, kayak polo teams and white water racers might disagree with you. We have a very good white water kayaking centre built especially for the kayak and canoe races in the 2012 Olympics. Admittedly, going for 'a bit of a paddle' or canoe touring isn't sporty, but then neither is the vast majority of climbing. However, since you can compete against opponents in climbing, particularly in speed climbing and structured indoor competitions, I don't see any reason why some climbing disciplines couldn't be considered as sports, the same way that some kayaking disciplines are. I guess the whole activity isn't necessarily a sport but with the element of competition added, certain elements of it can be.
> If you play football or rugby etc, you are always playing against another side, and the goal is to beat that team. Running and other athletic sports are more individualistic, but the goal is the same - to beat your opponents. 99% of climbing is not you versus x, it is simply a personal challenge against the rock. I wouldn't claim that kayaking, surfing, or BASE jumping are 'sports' either - and very often, people climb (or go kayaking, etc) simply for pleasure on routes that will in no way challenge them. To describe climbing as a sport is to deny that the vast majority of climbers do not view it as a sport with the attendant requirement to win or lose, but a highly enjoyable and challenging (physical) activity.
I think that slalom kayakers, racing kayakers, kayak polo teams and white water racers might disagree with you. We have a very good white water kayaking centre built especially for the kayak and canoe races in the 2012 Olympics. Admittedly, going for 'a bit of a paddle' or canoe touring isn't sporty, but then neither is the vast majority of climbing. However, since you can compete against opponents in climbing, particularly in speed climbing and structured indoor competitions, I don't see any reason why some climbing disciplines couldn't be considered as sports, the same way that some kayaking disciplines are. I guess the whole activity isn't necessarily a sport but with the element of competition added, certain elements of it can be.
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Have you looked at the BMC 2014 annual report and the income and expenditure numbers?
It has competitions down for 11% of the 778K budget for Specialist programs. Specialist Programs also bring in 117K (some of which will be fees to enter competitions) so 661K net. 11% of 661K is about 73K.
The BMC brings in 1.6 million from subscriptions (some of which will be subscriptions from comp climbers and the families of young comp climbers who join BMC specifically to take part in competitions). It also gets 531K from Sport England.
My guess is if the BMC was not a national governing body for a sport but simply a representative organisation for hill walkers and climbers it would have an uphill struggle ticking the boxes to get that kind of money from government.
When you look at the size of the grant from Sport England I don't see there's much of a case that comp climbing is getting subsidised by non-comp climbers membership fees. More like everybody is getting subsidised by government.
Have you looked at the BMC 2014 annual report and the income and expenditure numbers?
It has competitions down for 11% of the 778K budget for Specialist programs. Specialist Programs also bring in 117K (some of which will be fees to enter competitions) so 661K net. 11% of 661K is about 73K.
The BMC brings in 1.6 million from subscriptions (some of which will be subscriptions from comp climbers and the families of young comp climbers who join BMC specifically to take part in competitions). It also gets 531K from Sport England.
My guess is if the BMC was not a national governing body for a sport but simply a representative organisation for hill walkers and climbers it would have an uphill struggle ticking the boxes to get that kind of money from government.
When you look at the size of the grant from Sport England I don't see there's much of a case that comp climbing is getting subsidised by non-comp climbers membership fees. More like everybody is getting subsidised by government.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And to Wiley Coyote (incidentally, my fave cartoon character......but i digress)
Dont forget, that includes the cost of the comp officer, who is 100% funded by sport england.
The team coaches etc direct costs (hotels etc) are shared amongst the competitors. They give their time for free.
All others are volunteers. The net expenditure is also reduced by the income generated by entry fees etc (the biggest being the YCS which has >800 competitors at between £20 and £30 each).
And I havent been cagey at all. You put forward quite forthrightly that you wanted no part in funding anything to do with comps (or cold wintery things); I asked how much you thought was given to comps and the teams, and you have said nothing other than "well you tell me". Not impressed.
So from Tom's figs, less direct sport england funding, less entry fees, it looks as if "we" are subsidising "you". At least looking at direct costs. But, as previously stated, its not as easy as that. But I might just try to nail it down a bit, as i think that given the membership increase through comps and income generated through training courses etc, comps get a raw deal from the BMC.
But I would say that, I'm involved in comps.........
And to Wiley Coyote (incidentally, my fave cartoon character......but i digress)
Dont forget, that includes the cost of the comp officer, who is 100% funded by sport england.
The team coaches etc direct costs (hotels etc) are shared amongst the competitors. They give their time for free.
All others are volunteers. The net expenditure is also reduced by the income generated by entry fees etc (the biggest being the YCS which has >800 competitors at between £20 and £30 each).
And I havent been cagey at all. You put forward quite forthrightly that you wanted no part in funding anything to do with comps (or cold wintery things); I asked how much you thought was given to comps and the teams, and you have said nothing other than "well you tell me". Not impressed.
So from Tom's figs, less direct sport england funding, less entry fees, it looks as if "we" are subsidising "you". At least looking at direct costs. But, as previously stated, its not as easy as that. But I might just try to nail it down a bit, as i think that given the membership increase through comps and income generated through training courses etc, comps get a raw deal from the BMC.
But I would say that, I'm involved in comps.........
3
In reply to Ian W:
Point of order, Mr Chairman! I never said I was against funding cold wintry things. I said I did not do them but specifically said I had no prob with them being part of the BMC remit precisely because they are very obviously mountaineering. My objection is to my money going towards comps which I think have as much to do with rock climbing as ice dancing has to do with ice climbing.
But feel free to take as long as you want on the figures now as I'm off to destroy the ozone layer on a big silver bird to do a couple of weeks climbing - on rock.
Point of order, Mr Chairman! I never said I was against funding cold wintry things. I said I did not do them but specifically said I had no prob with them being part of the BMC remit precisely because they are very obviously mountaineering. My objection is to my money going towards comps which I think have as much to do with rock climbing as ice dancing has to do with ice climbing.
But feel free to take as long as you want on the figures now as I'm off to destroy the ozone layer on a big silver bird to do a couple of weeks climbing - on rock.
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
As Ian W says the comps are a net benefit to the BMC, they also boost member numbers because the kids become BMC members often via family memberships which the BMC wouldn't have otherwise got.
So, if by your crude calculation the BMC spent (for example) £10K on comps, so 10p per member, they bring in memberships worth, as a guess £30-40K.
The cost per member of the spend on comps is irrelevant to the overall net benefit - that's just bad accounting.
Members like yourself may well resent the10p but are unaware of the benefit.
As Ian W says the comps are a net benefit to the BMC, they also boost member numbers because the kids become BMC members often via family memberships which the BMC wouldn't have otherwise got.
So, if by your crude calculation the BMC spent (for example) £10K on comps, so 10p per member, they bring in memberships worth, as a guess £30-40K.
The cost per member of the spend on comps is irrelevant to the overall net benefit - that's just bad accounting.
Members like yourself may well resent the10p but are unaware of the benefit.
1
In reply to stp:
I would say that climbing has just as many 'rules' as other sports. Have you read 'Games Climbers Play' ?
> Extreme sports are about exhilaration, skill and danger. They do not normally involve teams and there are very few rules.
I would say that climbing has just as many 'rules' as other sports. Have you read 'Games Climbers Play' ?
In reply to stp:
I think it's because s we've seen the is no formal definition if what a sport is. There is simply s loose collection of attributes some of which define a sport.
E.g.
1) there are two or more opposing sides. Yes, for football. But is war a sport?
2) you try to force errors in your opponent. Yes, in tennis not in golf...
So climbing fits around the periphery of this fuzzy set which is why the are disagreements.
Another one. If I partake in training for a competitive sport but never actually do a competition am I partaking in sport or just s pastime?
Please correct me if I'm wrong proper mathematicians...
I think it's because s we've seen the is no formal definition if what a sport is. There is simply s loose collection of attributes some of which define a sport.
E.g.
1) there are two or more opposing sides. Yes, for football. But is war a sport?
2) you try to force errors in your opponent. Yes, in tennis not in golf...
So climbing fits around the periphery of this fuzzy set which is why the are disagreements.
Another one. If I partake in training for a competitive sport but never actually do a competition am I partaking in sport or just s pastime?
Please correct me if I'm wrong proper mathematicians...
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
A parallel from another field. I lifeguard. A large part of what the certification authority does if Lifesaving Sport. Some people argue that this is a waste of time. However every rescue is a competition : the rescuer and the casualty against the elements. Competition helps improve the quality of the response from the rescuers. Even just having competition helps raise fitness standards. It keeps people interested and motivated to push the limits.
Unless you ignore things like grades you are taking part in a competition each time you try to push the grades you climb. The competition is you against the rock, or perhaps you against yourself. You win by surviving. Many climbers will compare themselves against others... I am a better/worse climber because of the grades I climb. All the bmc does is formalise this into part of what they do. You can argue that this is not post of climbing but I think almost all climbers will admire a climber who can scale a high grade climb with ease and hence are competitive to some degree.
A parallel from another field. I lifeguard. A large part of what the certification authority does if Lifesaving Sport. Some people argue that this is a waste of time. However every rescue is a competition : the rescuer and the casualty against the elements. Competition helps improve the quality of the response from the rescuers. Even just having competition helps raise fitness standards. It keeps people interested and motivated to push the limits.
Unless you ignore things like grades you are taking part in a competition each time you try to push the grades you climb. The competition is you against the rock, or perhaps you against yourself. You win by surviving. Many climbers will compare themselves against others... I am a better/worse climber because of the grades I climb. All the bmc does is formalise this into part of what they do. You can argue that this is not post of climbing but I think almost all climbers will admire a climber who can scale a high grade climb with ease and hence are competitive to some degree.
2
In reply to stp:
for me, it's a sport all right... I just don't wish to see it in the Olympic games. I increasingly see the OG as a big corrupt corporate machine (I use to love watching them when I did not realise what was going on in the background).
As all sports, the participant see what they want out of it. It use to be a rebel activity. But look how "tidy", "mainstream" and "acceptable" we have become as a group (BTW, I never was a rebel climber...I had been a rebel boarder in my youth in the early to mid 90s- boarding soon became as mainstream as everything else).
I guess, may be some people see it as lifestyle. I see it as something I wish I could do as often as I wanted and would describe myself as a lifer.
Incidentally in my view, some climbers are athletes... not necessarily due to the grade they play at (although unless very young- or a fleetingly short amount of their overall climbing career- I can't see a 6a climber being one) but their approach to improving themselves.
In this, I like to improve but I chase route experience more than improvement. I only try to improve to get access to more route experience- that is why I do not consider myself an athlete.
for me, it's a sport all right... I just don't wish to see it in the Olympic games. I increasingly see the OG as a big corrupt corporate machine (I use to love watching them when I did not realise what was going on in the background).
As all sports, the participant see what they want out of it. It use to be a rebel activity. But look how "tidy", "mainstream" and "acceptable" we have become as a group (BTW, I never was a rebel climber...I had been a rebel boarder in my youth in the early to mid 90s- boarding soon became as mainstream as everything else).
I guess, may be some people see it as lifestyle. I see it as something I wish I could do as often as I wanted and would describe myself as a lifer.
Incidentally in my view, some climbers are athletes... not necessarily due to the grade they play at (although unless very young- or a fleetingly short amount of their overall climbing career- I can't see a 6a climber being one) but their approach to improving themselves.
In this, I like to improve but I chase route experience more than improvement. I only try to improve to get access to more route experience- that is why I do not consider myself an athlete.
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Enjoy!
In two weeks we have the blcc's at awesome walls in sheffield - bring your suntan along to watch!
Ian
Enjoy!
In two weeks we have the blcc's at awesome walls in sheffield - bring your suntan along to watch!
Ian
1
1
In reply to jsmcfarland:
Climbing has no rules, but it does have "ethics". This implies a voluntary adoption of un-policed behaviour and hence a sense of honour which seems lacking in so-called "sport" these days. I know this sounds rather pious and I know climbers are not immune to the odd bit of jiggery-pokery, but there remains at its core is an almost anarchistic purity.
> I would say that climbing has just as many 'rules' as other sports. Have you read 'Games Climbers Play' ?
Climbing has no rules, but it does have "ethics". This implies a voluntary adoption of un-policed behaviour and hence a sense of honour which seems lacking in so-called "sport" these days. I know this sounds rather pious and I know climbers are not immune to the odd bit of jiggery-pokery, but there remains at its core is an almost anarchistic purity.
1
In reply to stp:
Ernist Hemingway, There are only 3 sports Bull Fighting, Motor Racing and Mounterering. All the rest are just games. And that from one of the greatest writers that ever lived.
Ernist Hemingway, There are only 3 sports Bull Fighting, Motor Racing and Mounterering. All the rest are just games. And that from one of the greatest writers that ever lived.
2
2
In reply to Webster:
I'm arguing against your previous reply to me starting with a flat 'Wrong'!
So, yes, I'm sure that climbing (even non-competitive recreational climbing) is a sport. As well as (in Gordon's words) 'much much more'. As is non-competitive running, despite your assertion that it's not. So I'm quite happy to say I enjoy sports like climbing, running, cycling and sailing, despite neither participating in competitive climbing or cycling nor having the slightest intention of ever doing so. But not arguing about it further when we clearly have very different understandings of 'sport'!
> im not entirely sure what side you are arguing, if any?
I'm arguing against your previous reply to me starting with a flat 'Wrong'!
So, yes, I'm sure that climbing (even non-competitive recreational climbing) is a sport. As well as (in Gordon's words) 'much much more'. As is non-competitive running, despite your assertion that it's not. So I'm quite happy to say I enjoy sports like climbing, running, cycling and sailing, despite neither participating in competitive climbing or cycling nor having the slightest intention of ever doing so. But not arguing about it further when we clearly have very different understandings of 'sport'!
2
In reply to stp:
The fact that we are having this discussion at all shows that it is not clearly a sport in the way that football and rugby are, but if people want to think of it that way there is no reason not to. Surely it's a question of context? For some purposes it may be useful to consider it as a sport, but people can legitimately take different views without being right or wrong.
Speaking for myself I don't regard mainstream climbing as a sport, although the competitive elements of it clearly are. I know that I approach climbing with a very different mindset to the way I approach more conventional sports.
The fact that we are having this discussion at all shows that it is not clearly a sport in the way that football and rugby are, but if people want to think of it that way there is no reason not to. Surely it's a question of context? For some purposes it may be useful to consider it as a sport, but people can legitimately take different views without being right or wrong.
Speaking for myself I don't regard mainstream climbing as a sport, although the competitive elements of it clearly are. I know that I approach climbing with a very different mindset to the way I approach more conventional sports.
In reply to stp:
There was a discussion this morning on R4 Today about whether bridge should get funding from Sport England:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34320201
I think that. compared to bridge, climbing is definitely a sport. And bridge certainly is not a sport...
There was a discussion this morning on R4 Today about whether bridge should get funding from Sport England:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34320201
I think that. compared to bridge, climbing is definitely a sport. And bridge certainly is not a sport...
2
In reply to petestack:
So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'. hmmm...id be interested to hear your views on climate change, im sure your equally an expert in that as well!
There really is very little debate to be had, you can call it what you like but its NOT a sport its an OAA.
> I'm arguing against your previous reply to me starting with a flat 'Wrong'!
> So, yes, I'm sure that climbing (even non-competitive recreational climbing) is a sport.
So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'. hmmm...id be interested to hear your views on climate change, im sure your equally an expert in that as well!
There really is very little debate to be had, you can call it what you like but its NOT a sport its an OAA.
In reply to stp:
Out of interest, regarding the quote of bull fighting, motor racing and mountaineering - has anyone here done all 3? If so, what are your views on a definition of sport? It would be nice to introduce a historical literary bent to the debate.
Out of interest, regarding the quote of bull fighting, motor racing and mountaineering - has anyone here done all 3? If so, what are your views on a definition of sport? It would be nice to introduce a historical literary bent to the debate.
1
In reply to Webster:
It is good that others have chosen to disagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of things. Otherwise we would still assume the earth was flat and remove the blood of sick people.
>
> So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'.
> So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'.
It is good that others have chosen to disagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of things. Otherwise we would still assume the earth was flat and remove the blood of sick people.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
Similar conversation on R5 - with some woman who is 'big in Bridge' saying that (paraphrase) "you have to be fit to do it...err, I go out soon to Beijing for the championships...you've got to be fit to cope with the jet lag...and the different food..." - presume though that they train for that sort of physical duress?
Similar conversation on R5 - with some woman who is 'big in Bridge' saying that (paraphrase) "you have to be fit to do it...err, I go out soon to Beijing for the championships...you've got to be fit to cope with the jet lag...and the different food..." - presume though that they train for that sort of physical duress?
3
In reply to Greenbanks:
The bridge thing is all about getting funding from Sport England. The man from Sport England gave a very gallic 'non!'.
The bridge thing is all about getting funding from Sport England. The man from Sport England gave a very gallic 'non!'.
In reply to Greenbanks:
Dhondy very much big in (womens) bridge - fairly sure a multiple world champion
The bridge world championships are in fact pretty severe tests of stamina. They last ~two weeks, the finals a couple of days and the players have to concentrate hard for long periods of that time. Like sustained/concentrated amounts of chess and similar things that's really quite taxing.
More mental than physical of course, and I've never been sure how well mental and physical stamina link. I can do 20+ mile walks back to back fine, a weekend chess tournament (5 long games over a weekend) would probably flatten me nowadays.
Top bridge players do certainly last much longer into old age than even chess (60+ vs 40ish).
As to whether it (or anything else!) is a sport, well goodness knows
Dhondy very much big in (womens) bridge - fairly sure a multiple world champion
The bridge world championships are in fact pretty severe tests of stamina. They last ~two weeks, the finals a couple of days and the players have to concentrate hard for long periods of that time. Like sustained/concentrated amounts of chess and similar things that's really quite taxing.
More mental than physical of course, and I've never been sure how well mental and physical stamina link. I can do 20+ mile walks back to back fine, a weekend chess tournament (5 long games over a weekend) would probably flatten me nowadays.
Top bridge players do certainly last much longer into old age than even chess (60+ vs 40ish).
As to whether it (or anything else!) is a sport, well goodness knows
1
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
The deffinition of fitnes is 'The ability to meet the demands of the environment' so a bridge player does need to be 'Fit' to perform. If the demands of the competition require them to sit still and concentrate for however long it lasts, then in doing so is by definition 'being fit'. 'fitness' has nothing to do with 'health', a morbidly obease sumo wrestler can be 'extremely fit' and a 'heart attack waiting to happen'.
> Similar conversation on R5 - with some woman who is 'big in Bridge' saying that (paraphrase) "you have to be fit to do it...err, I go out soon to Beijing for the championships...you've got to be fit to cope with the jet lag...and the different food..." - presume though that they train for that sort of physical duress?
The deffinition of fitnes is 'The ability to meet the demands of the environment' so a bridge player does need to be 'Fit' to perform. If the demands of the competition require them to sit still and concentrate for however long it lasts, then in doing so is by definition 'being fit'. 'fitness' has nothing to do with 'health', a morbidly obease sumo wrestler can be 'extremely fit' and a 'heart attack waiting to happen'.
1
1
In reply to David Riley:
So by your logic any idiot can challenge any learnered person because 'some intelegent people have been wrong in the past', therefore they must be wrong now? Why dont we just burn all the worlds books now, clearly education is meaningless because Joe Bloggs knows everything...
> It is good that others have chosen to disagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of things. Otherwise we would still assume the earth was flat and remove the blood of sick people.
So by your logic any idiot can challenge any learnered person because 'some intelegent people have been wrong in the past', therefore they must be wrong now? Why dont we just burn all the worlds books now, clearly education is meaningless because Joe Bloggs knows everything...
2
In reply to Webster:
Claiming you are an expert on something and therefore right is a fallacious argument: the argument by authority. Even so called experts can be wrong and can certainly change their opinions and regularly do.
Claiming you are an expert on something and therefore right is a fallacious argument: the argument by authority. Even so called experts can be wrong and can certainly change their opinions and regularly do.
3
In reply to stp:
.... and if you are going to do the argument by authority thing it helps to state your credentials and avoid basic spelling and grammar errors.
> Claiming you are an expert on something and therefore right is a fallacious argument: the argument by authority. Even so called experts can be wrong and can certainly change their opinions and regularly do.
.... and if you are going to do the argument by authority thing it helps to state your credentials and avoid basic spelling and grammar errors.
1
In reply to stp:
As a scientist you recognise that you are the authority, and that the other authorities are people like yourself, and therefore learn to treat arguments to authority with the respect they deserve, i.e. often bugger all!
As a scientist you recognise that you are the authority, and that the other authorities are people like yourself, and therefore learn to treat arguments to authority with the respect they deserve, i.e. often bugger all!
2
In reply to Qwertilot:
I don't doubt it requires mental stamina (like chess) but 'sport' requires physical fitness!
I don't doubt it requires mental stamina (like chess) but 'sport' requires physical fitness!
In reply to Webster:
Yes. And the 'learned person' should be able to give a convincing response to the 'challenge'.
> So by your logic any idiot can challenge any learned person because 'some intelligent people have been wrong in the past', therefore they may be wrong now?
Yes. And the 'learned person' should be able to give a convincing response to the 'challenge'.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I have, numerous times on this thread and other similar threads i have stated why climbing isnt a sport and why other things are etc etc. all i get in reponse is 'But in my opinion it is'...
if the facts arent convincing enough for the 'challenger' then nothing else will be.
> Yes. And the 'learned person' should be able to give a convincing response to the 'challenge'.
I have, numerous times on this thread and other similar threads i have stated why climbing isnt a sport and why other things are etc etc. all i get in reponse is 'But in my opinion it is'...
if the facts arent convincing enough for the 'challenger' then nothing else will be.
In reply to stp:
I never claimed to be an expert, far from it, im a geologist. but i do claim to have studied the specific question in detail for several years (school/college, and aced the tests if you must know).
and yes expersts get disproven through advancements in technology/scientific thinking, not by somebody saying "but i think this...". Besides this question isnt a matter of science to be proven/disproven (like the flat earth analogy), its a sociological construct.
> Claiming you are an expert on something and therefore right is a fallacious argument: the argument by authority. Even so called experts can be wrong and can certainly change their opinions and regularly do.
I never claimed to be an expert, far from it, im a geologist. but i do claim to have studied the specific question in detail for several years (school/college, and aced the tests if you must know).
and yes expersts get disproven through advancements in technology/scientific thinking, not by somebody saying "but i think this...". Besides this question isnt a matter of science to be proven/disproven (like the flat earth analogy), its a sociological construct.
In reply to Webster:
Shame your comprehensive education didn't do a better job in the spelling and punctuation department.
> So by your logic any idiot can challenge any learnered person because 'some intelegent people have been wrong in the past', therefore they must be wrong now? Why dont we just burn all the worlds books now, clearly education is meaningless because Joe Bloggs knows everything...
Shame your comprehensive education didn't do a better job in the spelling and punctuation department.
2
1
In reply to Webster:
Maybe in all those years of study, you should have consulted your namesake dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sport
sport (noun)
: a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other
: sports in general
: a physical activity (such as hunting, fishing, running, swimming, etc.) that is done for enjoyment
My italics.
For the artificial purposes of funding from the likes of Sport England, there might be a more rigid definition of the meaning of sport to require a set of rules and competition*, but if we look at the etymology of the word, we find that it derives from 'disport', meaning 'to divert or amuse oneself', which coincides with the more general, vernacular use of the word. Hell, under that definition, even bridge is a sport...
Words have different meanings within different contexts: they can become jargon, essentially. Even my use of 'vernacular' is a little confusing, since it can mean both the language used commonly (my use here), and a jargon within a particular group. I suspect your years of study have been within a specific context: sport psychology, politics of sport, sport management, etc. where the word has a more narrow, jargon meaning.
* Actually, given the discussion on R4, Sport England say their mission is to improve physical health by encouraging physical activity. Sport England already support rambling, and I'm pretty sure there aren't 'competitive rambles'. So I think Sport England would consider climbing to be a sport, even if there weren't the minority branches of climbing that are competitive.
<quote>
Phil Smith, director of Sport England, told BBC Radio 5 live the argument ultimately came down to money and his organisation must spend its "precious funding" on activities which improve physical health. "It's Sport England's job to get the nation fitter," he said.
</quote>
> So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'.
Maybe in all those years of study, you should have consulted your namesake dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sport
sport (noun)
: a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other
: sports in general
: a physical activity (such as hunting, fishing, running, swimming, etc.) that is done for enjoyment
My italics.
For the artificial purposes of funding from the likes of Sport England, there might be a more rigid definition of the meaning of sport to require a set of rules and competition*, but if we look at the etymology of the word, we find that it derives from 'disport', meaning 'to divert or amuse oneself', which coincides with the more general, vernacular use of the word. Hell, under that definition, even bridge is a sport...
Words have different meanings within different contexts: they can become jargon, essentially. Even my use of 'vernacular' is a little confusing, since it can mean both the language used commonly (my use here), and a jargon within a particular group. I suspect your years of study have been within a specific context: sport psychology, politics of sport, sport management, etc. where the word has a more narrow, jargon meaning.
* Actually, given the discussion on R4, Sport England say their mission is to improve physical health by encouraging physical activity. Sport England already support rambling, and I'm pretty sure there aren't 'competitive rambles'. So I think Sport England would consider climbing to be a sport, even if there weren't the minority branches of climbing that are competitive.
<quote>
Phil Smith, director of Sport England, told BBC Radio 5 live the argument ultimately came down to money and his organisation must spend its "precious funding" on activities which improve physical health. "It's Sport England's job to get the nation fitter," he said.
</quote>
3
In reply to Webster:
Yes you say: "by definition a sport is competitive. it is one of the few set in stone parameters that absolutely define a sport".
However this is less certain than you think. According to Wikipedia "There are opposing views on the necessity of competition as a defining element of a sport" AND "the Council of Europe include all forms of physical exercise, including those completed just for fun."
But even if the competition element was necessary it can still be argued that climbing is competitive. Personally I don't subscribe to the idea that its not competitive. Its only not competitive in a formalized way. There is no central authority but there are certainly agreed rules as to what constitutes a valid ascent and these are clearly embedded in this web site when you log a climb.
Yes you say: "by definition a sport is competitive. it is one of the few set in stone parameters that absolutely define a sport".
However this is less certain than you think. According to Wikipedia "There are opposing views on the necessity of competition as a defining element of a sport" AND "the Council of Europe include all forms of physical exercise, including those completed just for fun."
But even if the competition element was necessary it can still be argued that climbing is competitive. Personally I don't subscribe to the idea that its not competitive. Its only not competitive in a formalized way. There is no central authority but there are certainly agreed rules as to what constitutes a valid ascent and these are clearly embedded in this web site when you log a climb.
In reply to stp:
Climbing by it's very nature isn't competitive (if by that we mean competing against others). Like many other outdoor pursuits it could be said to be about challenging yourself in a wild or difficult natural environment (i.e. a mountain or cliff). Indoor climbing has evolved as a result of outdoor climbing and is sometimes organised to be competitive, but that doesn't mean the very nature of climbing as an activity is competitive.
Grades don't necessarily symbolise competition. Their function is to help climbers know what they are letting themselves in for when they attempt a climb.
Climbing by it's very nature isn't competitive (if by that we mean competing against others). Like many other outdoor pursuits it could be said to be about challenging yourself in a wild or difficult natural environment (i.e. a mountain or cliff). Indoor climbing has evolved as a result of outdoor climbing and is sometimes organised to be competitive, but that doesn't mean the very nature of climbing as an activity is competitive.
Grades don't necessarily symbolise competition. Their function is to help climbers know what they are letting themselves in for when they attempt a climb.
In reply to stp:
"Sport" is not precisely defined. Definitions are available, but they vary. Therefore there doesn't seem be much point in discussing it at length, much less getting worked up about it.
If I casually refer to climbing as a sport, and someone tells me categorically that I'm wrong, I'll probably take the next opportunity to excuse myself, and go and find someone more interesting to talk to
"Sport" is not precisely defined. Definitions are available, but they vary. Therefore there doesn't seem be much point in discussing it at length, much less getting worked up about it.
If I casually refer to climbing as a sport, and someone tells me categorically that I'm wrong, I'll probably take the next opportunity to excuse myself, and go and find someone more interesting to talk to
2
In reply to Webster:
Oh jeez, you're full of yourself, aren't you?
Och well, you can call it what you like too!
Think I'm an idiot and you're a learned person?
In reply to bpmcimb:
Some common sense at last!
> So your choosing to dissagree with somebody who has spent several years studying the ins and outs of what is and isnt a sport purely because you 'think it is a sport'. hmmm...id be interested to hear your views on climate change, im sure your equally an expert in that as well!
Oh jeez, you're full of yourself, aren't you?
> There really is very little debate to be had, you can call it what you like but its NOT a sport its an OAA.
Och well, you can call it what you like too!
> So by your logic any idiot can challenge any learnered person
Think I'm an idiot and you're a learned person?
In reply to bpmcimb:
> If I casually refer to climbing as a sport, and someone tells me categorically that I'm wrong, I'll probably take the next opportunity to excuse myself, and go and find someone more interesting to talk to
Some common sense at last!
4
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I used to think that too but over time I changed my mind. It's the competitive element that has driven the increase in grades over the years and sometimes the drive for first ascents. But it would be odd if only leading climbers are competitive. It would mean they climb for different reasons to the rest of us. You can see it when a group of people go bouldering together. There's a nice feeling of satisfaction for the person who does the problem first. It's not the kind of serious competition of an organized event. But more like knocking a football around with your mates, trying to score a goal: there's no bad feeling if the other scores first.
I used to think that too but over time I changed my mind. It's the competitive element that has driven the increase in grades over the years and sometimes the drive for first ascents. But it would be odd if only leading climbers are competitive. It would mean they climb for different reasons to the rest of us. You can see it when a group of people go bouldering together. There's a nice feeling of satisfaction for the person who does the problem first. It's not the kind of serious competition of an organized event. But more like knocking a football around with your mates, trying to score a goal: there's no bad feeling if the other scores first.
In reply to stp:
I agree that there can be competitive elements, as with anything really (physical activities, work etc), but unlike things like team sports it's surely not the essence of the activity.
I agree that there can be competitive elements, as with anything really (physical activities, work etc), but unlike things like team sports it's surely not the essence of the activity.
In reply to Qwertilot:
Heather D is certainly a multiple world champion, although only in women's bridge (where the standard is fairly low, of course).
Playing high-level bridge is certainly tiring, but then so is doing exams in mathematics, and no-one calls that a sport.
HD is a sensible lass; she only comes out with this nonsense about how it's a sport because her husband is a panjandrum in bridge admin and they want to get funding. She knows better.
jcm
Heather D is certainly a multiple world champion, although only in women's bridge (where the standard is fairly low, of course).
Playing high-level bridge is certainly tiring, but then so is doing exams in mathematics, and no-one calls that a sport.
HD is a sensible lass; she only comes out with this nonsense about how it's a sport because her husband is a panjandrum in bridge admin and they want to get funding. She knows better.
jcm
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Certainly can be.
When I'm out with a certain partner, being better than him is my main goal and motivation.
Dunno if that's 'sport', or even healthy, but it helps me enjoy more 'normal' climbing with others!
Anyway, this thread... Good grief!
Surely the only real sport is chessboxing.
> Climbing by it's very nature isn't competitive (if by that we mean competing against others).
Certainly can be.
When I'm out with a certain partner, being better than him is my main goal and motivation.
Dunno if that's 'sport', or even healthy, but it helps me enjoy more 'normal' climbing with others!
Anyway, this thread... Good grief!
Surely the only real sport is chessboxing.
In reply to Just Another Dave:
As I say, it can have competitive elements but the whole nature of the thing, it's essence, isn't competitive.
Putting it another way, any activity which works just as well soloing as with others present is probably not competitive!
As I say, it can have competitive elements but the whole nature of the thing, it's essence, isn't competitive.
Putting it another way, any activity which works just as well soloing as with others present is probably not competitive!
1
In reply to stp:
Before you can have this debate you need a very clear definition of what climbing is. Whatever we think many people view walking up Snowdon as "climbing" Snowdon. Is recreational walking a sport ?
Before you can have this debate you need a very clear definition of what climbing is. Whatever we think many people view walking up Snowdon as "climbing" Snowdon. Is recreational walking a sport ?
Climbing has been a sport going back at least to the last quarter of the 19th century. All sorts of societal influences made this possible. What gyms have added is a more formal and controlled competitive aspect.
In reply to GrahamD:
Maybe - when it turns into Munro bagging or ticking off long distance paths.
> Is recreational walking a sport ?
Maybe - when it turns into Munro bagging or ticking off long distance paths.
Post edited at 11:27
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Speed walking!
Definitely the stupidest Olympic sport...
But for comparison, compare to running, walking and skiing.
Running and skiing are generally accepted to be sports but plenty of people run or ski non-competitively, either to get fit or just to get from point a to point b. Speed walking is a sport, so arguably walking is also a sport... but what we really mean in all cases is that there is a sport of running, walking, skiing and indeed climbing. Not all people who participate in running, walking, skiing or climbing are participating in the respective sport.
When people say 'running is a sport' what they really mean is 'the sport of running is a sport', not that everyone who runs is participating in that sport or that all running is either training for or participating in the sport of running. So if we say 'climbing is a sport' we only mean that there is a sport of climbing, which there is (by any of the definitions of 'sport' given earlier). Certainly not all climbing is part of the sport of climbing.
The whole thing is semantics and therefore there is no definition beyond usage anyway
Speed walking!
Definitely the stupidest Olympic sport...
But for comparison, compare to running, walking and skiing.
Running and skiing are generally accepted to be sports but plenty of people run or ski non-competitively, either to get fit or just to get from point a to point b. Speed walking is a sport, so arguably walking is also a sport... but what we really mean in all cases is that there is a sport of running, walking, skiing and indeed climbing. Not all people who participate in running, walking, skiing or climbing are participating in the respective sport.
When people say 'running is a sport' what they really mean is 'the sport of running is a sport', not that everyone who runs is participating in that sport or that all running is either training for or participating in the sport of running. So if we say 'climbing is a sport' we only mean that there is a sport of climbing, which there is (by any of the definitions of 'sport' given earlier). Certainly not all climbing is part of the sport of climbing.
The whole thing is semantics and therefore there is no definition beyond usage anyway
Post edited at 12:25
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...