UKC

Recent marketing material from Adidas is indicative of a wider trend in the climbing community, one of commercialisation that threatens the cultural and historical health of the sport, according to Jonny Dry.

To kick off a new 'Opinion' column on UKC, we go back to the age-old ethics debate of bolting: when and where is it appropriate, and how is commercialisation affecting the traditional ethics of climbing and mountaineering?.

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:


Totally and utterly agree with this. When I think of 'Red Bull' and 'climbing' together, I want to throw up.

However I have considerable sympathy with Gareth Leah. I didn't know that there were other attempted (and bolted) lines on the peak, nor that there have been failed second ascents. So - where exactly are we now re Gareth Leah's route and the 'local ethic'?

He's dead right that few people criticising the style of new routes have done significant amounts of new routing themselves. I've placed somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 bolts and I can tell you two things. It's bloody knackering placing bolts and surviving the attentions of many dozens (hundreds?) of loose blocks whizzing around can be extremely fraying on the nerves. And that's just at ground level in England! I wouldn't have wanted to be up on that peak - it gave off a kind of 'Troll Wall in the Tropics' vibe - a dangerous place.

Mick

In reply to UKC Articles:

I can understand what Mick says, but there's a mindset that says "we're taking drills and hundreds of bolts to guarantee success" that's totally at odds with most people's definition of adventure. For complete contrast, how about Pat Littlejohn's Dark Safari (600m E6) on the N Face of Poi in northern Kenya https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_2001_files/AJ%202001%202...

In reply to UKC Articles:

Anyone else loving the irony?

In reply to UKC Articles:

Perhaps the use of bolts like this suggests that it should remain unclimbed.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


"should", according to whom?

I'm a huge advocate of adventure in climbing and the use of 'clean' methods wherever possible, but I have to admit that there are some rocks that simply don't lend themselves to anything other than a bolted style. Tsaranoro in Madagascar is a very good example - there really would be not a single route there without at least some bolts, and consequently this magnificent climbing ground would simply not exist as a climbing objective. Not now and not ever. Contrast that with many of the tepuis I've climbed in Venezuela where, by and large, routes are protectable without drilling, as long as you're prepared to accept long runouts and big uncertainty.

Trying to fit all of the rocks in the world into the same ethic not only wouldn't work, but its lack of targeted reasonableness would lead to a lack of respect for the ethic/style/rule itself, which inevitably would lead to plenty of people rebelling. Imaging declaring that it's only reasonable to drive at 40mph max, based on a life lived in urban environments. There's a whole world of motorway out there that simply doesn't fit the experience nor the approach.

Whether this particular rock is one that could reasonably only be climbed by extensive bolting is a question I'd leave to those who have actually been there and tried to climb it.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Follow the money. THAT is what's going on here. Adventure and the image of the sexy 'risk taker', has currency. Everyone has their price.

Follow the Bear. Every time i see Bear turn up in his TV programs with a coil of rope around his torso, i weep at how pathetic it is that this totem of adventure has been reduced to the cosmetic.

In reply to john arran:


Surely this really is the proverbial bottom line? We can sit around and theorise until the cows come home whereas an hour up there might reveal a very different story.

Mick

P.S. The late Brian Cropper used to do magnificent anti-bolting rants down the phone to me (and, I suspect, others). Although it was partly a desire to let off steam (he was lonely and frustrated by declining health), there was no doubting that, for him, climbing had been all about adventure. In the end, he'd calm down... and he'd always finish on the same note. "At least that John Arran's doing the right stuff on those tepuis routes in Venezuela!"

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm a trad enthusiast. I like struggling to put in gear above a potential big fall when I'm knackered, it's character building

On the subject of commercialisation there are some very serious issues just on the horizon imo.

The most noticeable difference between today and when I started climbing, nearly 40 years ago, is the proportion of participants involved in a commercial activity, on a course, being guided, doing an endurance event, etc.

So some thoughts:
There is a prohibition on commercial activity on CROW act land as understand it, so can an instructor charge a client to climb on CROW land?
Why shouldn't the land owner, Stanage estate, etc, take a cut from the money the commercial operator is charging their clients to use the land?
How does the land owner decide who is involved in commercial activities, so why not charge everyone?

Traditionally we have enjoyed free access to some amazing places, will the increase in commercial activity in the mountains threaten that access?

In reply to Fruit:

Isn't this broadly what the NT were proposing last year? Not sure how that's progressed. Was it to allow small groups to continue for free but not big parties?

In reply to toad:

I wasn't aware of that.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I get bolts are some times a necessity, and I like sport as much as the next man, but 200 bolts does seem a lot.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I was pretty critical of the ethics in the film when it was featured on here at first...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=657920

I was not aware of the fact that there were existing bolts on the face and this changes my opinion on the bolting in the video. I was ill informed and jumped the gun so I'd like to apologise to Gareth and Sergio.

I'm still far from comfortable with the idea of 200 bolts on a 400m route but without proper knowledge of what's already on the face and how protectable the route is I'll leave it at that.



On a different note I think this article raises some really important points. There's plenty of companies who's goal will be to financially profit from climbing with no regard for climbing its self. I think if we don't watch this there might come a day when climbing isn't fundamentaly ridiculous and none of us want that.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I would strongly suggest that the only companies which care about climbing are climbing companies run by climbers.

Mick

In reply to john arran:


So we can't critique Cesare Maestri or David Lama on Cerro Torre?

(https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2840)

In reply to UKC Articles:
I've not read the article so cant comment on the content but I think if you are publishing an opinion piece it'd be good to know a bit about the author, especially when it deals with a specific climb/climber. What's his angle? Is he some 12 year old kid locked in his bedroom with a copy of Conquistadors of the Useless or someone with 30 years big walling experience? He could be Gaz Leah's sworn enemy or his mum (like I've said not are what it says!). He could be a sleeper agent from another clothing manufacturer. Regardless, I'm interested

In reply to UKC Articles:


Good luck fashioning your own nuts and crabs out of bits of tin foil. Or walking to Spain for a climbing trip.

In reply to Tyler:


Don't be silly. Where would we get our tinfoil from?

In reply to bouldery bits:

I thought he might have some spare after fashioning his hat.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Not sure if this whole commercial debate is such a big issue. I go climbing and thats it really. Regardless of what these big companies are trying to project or sell, I don't see that it has any effect of what we do. It's a bit like the BMC, joining such a thing won't make my experience any different just as companies making vids won't alter what I climb. Climbing is a big earner so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they are investing to get a cut of the pie and so what, if the gear's any good people will buy it and if it's not then no doubt it will sink.

On the topic of protecting the history and cultural health of the sport...... not sure that it's important. Whilst it's interesting to dip into the past to see who and whats gone before, it's really just entertainment for a lot of people. People like to reminisce about the past, the characters and routes and good for them if it's part of their experience. I watched Valley Uprising last month and it was just simple entertainment and I don't care too much about preserving anything to do with the actual climbing. Preservation of the natural enviroment is important so perhaps it's more about leaving no trace on the rock or nothing a good downpour won't wash away.

No offence to the older generation but I'm not overly interested in the history of who, how and when.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I don't think we get very far by criticising ascents like this: they are not the least creative, nor the least adventurous. There is obviously still something to be applauded about trying to widen climbers perceptions - even if bolts are used.

I think the major problem with the mass marketing of climbing is the way it changes the types of climbing people do. Climbing is an escape and a form of expression - it is only of any relevance in the land of people's minds. It is far easier for Adidas to have a photo shoot on a bolted 9b than to capture the exact moment someone launches into an E10 crux. So what do punters see more images of? - The bolted climb. Pictures and videos are very powerful. They occupy a space between reality and thought. What we see in them is what we dream of. So people see more sport climbing. They dream more of sport. They climb more sport routes. Climbing the full challenge the rock sets us (ie without bolts) goes out of vogue.

The only strand of hope for the indigenous climbing of the UK is that the popularity of trad climbing has historically followed cycles. Whether the popularity of traditional climbing can combat the insidious nature of mass advertising remains to be seen.

In reply to UKC Articles:


Cobblers. The commercialisation of climbing has been a topic of debate since climbing started and yet despite all the profits of doom there are still plenty of folks out there having adventures and not selling their souls.

In reply to olliebristol:


I said nothing of not forming an opinion or justified critique, only that the information used as a basis for that opinion or critique should come from first hand sources wherever possible and not simply be presumption based on largely unrelated experience.

In reply to DaveHK:


Oh very good. Was that intentional?

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

That's a pretty blinkered view.

You say you "go climbing and that's it", but without organisations like the BMC representing you as a climber you may quickly find yourself in a position where many of the places you enjoy climbing on so much suddenly become much more inaccessible. It's an organisation working for you in your best interests on a local and national scale.

The other end of the spectrum is what this article appears to be about (although it seems a little personal), which is that big companies that have no real interest in what is most important about the activity of climbing, but instead just want to latch on and drain it for what it's worth as an entirely commercial venture. I suppose as climers we like to see ourselves more as supporters of Roland of the RPs than Adidas and the crushing of the impossible.

The fact is, it's highly likely that this route would have been bolted and ascended whether a multibillion dollar company interjected or not. I wonder if the pill would be easier to swallow if they'd funded something more to our british ethical taste?

In reply to planetmarshall:


You saw what I did there.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


I thought exactly the same when i was even younger than I am now. I still am not overly bothered about knowing detailed history but i do recognise its huge importance and also that other climbers may not have the same relationship with climbing history and culture as me.

In reply to DaveHK:


This. Some of us can remember televised climbing in the 60´ s.

In reply to jimtitt:


And countless sponsored expeditions that offered to name peaks after their sponsors. Were there not fears of a Mount Durex at one point?

In reply to jimtitt:

Weren't the Abraham brothers criticised around the start of the 20th century? Frank Smythe certainly was in the 1930s.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I am surprised by this statement as it exposes a very one-dimensional experience to what climbing has to offer. There is nothing wrong with this approach (each to their own), but when I think back as a kid in the 80s, scouring the history section at the back of the guidebook, or getting fired up by photos in the magazines - being immersed in climbing whilst away from the rock was a huge part of my being a climber. It made you want to get out and repeat that route and follow in the path of those who had gone before, reliving history one hold at a time (quite a unique experience unlike with other historical events which cannot be so precisely re-enacted).

Perhaps it was just me and my Dad fired up like this....

In reply to Mick Ward:


I gather Ken Wilson, for all his positive contributions to the state of climbing in the UK, also struggled with the idea that someone could at the same time enjoy radical onsight new routing, was vehemently against the despoliation of remote environments, yet was also keen on bolting and climbing easy-access limestone sport routes, and, dare I say, even enjoyed competitions!

In reply to Mick Ward:


Shorter version works too IMO. And it's not about the product, it's about the way they market it by creating a spurious link between the consumption of a caffeinated sugary drink and participation in adrenaline sports.

Regarding the article, I think it would be mistake to think that's about the ascent as such. After all, from the comments on here it would seem that quite a few who previously criticised the ethics involved have amended their views in the face of new evidence. It's not even the fact that it's been exploited for marketing purposes, it's the way it's been done. The film seems to show as much or more about drilling and the maintenance of power tools in difficult conditions as it does about actual upward movement on rock (er, you know: climbing - that thing we do). There's certainly more time spent showing cool dudes hanging out together in far-out places - with suitably annoying musical accompaniment* - than there is of them doing what they actually went there to do.

It's all to do with the 'lifestyle package' that the company wants its potential customers to think they'll get if they buy the product, very little to do with the activity itself.

* What's the problem with accurately and sensitively depicting the unique atmosphere that belongs to these wild places? Why do they feel the need to impose a high street ambience on footage of such beautiful, remote locations?

In reply to Doug:

Agreed, there have always been commercial interests in climbing; in itself, no big problem. Think of it as a bit of ivy on a castle wall - who cares?

But if every piece of stone on a castle wall is festooned with ivy, then the ivy will just carry on until the castle collapses.

I fear that climbing will come under sustained attacks of this type over the next few years. Think of the enormous amount of media attention garnered by the FFA of the Dawn Wall. All those huge media companies covering it. And yet how many of those high-powered media figures made the slightest effort to understand the significance of what was happening? None that I saw. Instead we just got the same old 'human fly' media shite. Why? Because they don't care about climbing, they don't want to understand.

Contrast the huge amount of media hype over the FFA with the (relative) lack of attention to the second free ascent by Ondra. Why? First free ascent? Fabulous!!! Second free ascent? Yawn... They don't care. And they don't want to care. To us, both ascents were fascinating - but Ondra's ascent was, by far, the finest effort in the entire history of rock-climbing since 1886.

Commercial interests want climbing sanitised, turned into another 'extreme sport' (ugh!) moneyspinner. Compare the sleek, slick media images of 'extreme sports' with the sad reality - fat numpties in brand new wet suits, festooned with hundreds of pounds of brand new gear they don't know how to use.

Rant over (temporarily!)

Mick

In reply to Fruit:


Not quite accurate. Its a common misconception that 'excepted activities' are somehow 'banned'. They're not. But what you can't do is say you are allowed to do them because of the CRoW Act. And the norm would be that you seek landowner permission. However the term 'commercial activity' should be seen as mountain marathons, cyclo-cross rallies, village fetes etc rather then someone taking photos, teaching climbing; exactly the same activities as those doing it recreationally.

In reply to john arran:

For all Ken's genius (and it was genius), like all of us he had his limitations, stuff he just couldn't get his head around, bless him. I had exactly the same problem. He could understand only too well that I was in love with Cloggy. But that I would want to pull on plastic (or wood)... he just thought I was bonkers. He couldn't see that it was the fascination of pushing through your physical (and sometimes also psychological) limits.

There was once a thread on here about film clips which people felt epitomised the spirit of climbing. Mick Ryan chose a wonderful three minute clip of Malc Smith repeating a breakthrough sequence on his woody in Dunbar, five years later. It's riveting. Smith's giving it his all. The smile on his face, at the end, just says everything about the spirit of climbing, just as much as someone topping out on Great Wall on Cloggy.

Mick

In reply to Fruit:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/outdoor-activity-licence-faqs

In reply to Mick Ward:

Couldn't agree more. Particularly about 'Splinter' - a magnificent film that never gets old.

vimeo.com/6644468

In reply to Shani: I seem to be in the position now that I am decreasingly interested in the history and romance of climbing as viewed by what I see as increasingly rose tinted glasses.

Perhaps I'm a frightful heathen, but I simply want to go climbing - reliving history one hold at a time doesn't really enter my mind. I don't want my experience to be pigeonholed by people who want to reminisce about the mid 70's or whenever. I will add, to be clear, that I see this as a diferent discussion to one about ethics (which it probably isn't entirely)

In reply to john arran:


OK, but who says it *has* to exist as a climbing objective?
With unprotectable climbs why not leave them to the Honnolds of this world?
The reason for something being made into a climb can't just be "because we think we should be able to climb there" or "it would be a shame if people couldn't climb there" or "it wouldn't be generally accessible" because that's exactly the same viewpoint being criticised in the article - "want, take, have".

Sure it would be a shame for those people who want to climb there and weren't happy with climbing unprotectable lines if Tsaranoro didn't have any bolts on it. But that's not so different from saying that it's a shame you can walk in this walled off area because it's an SSSI. You could easily counter that people have enough places to walk already, that it's all very well wanting a sense of adventure but that Victorian phase of world exploration is well and truly over and has been for a good few decades now - perhaps it's time to change from an "seek out and conquer" mentality to a "map and manage" mentality?

In reply to UKC Articles:


Sponsored climbs with questionable ethics, designed to promote the sponsor, are nothing new.

They are a tiny percentage of the overall scene.

Most existing climbers will not change their current ethics as a result of these few climbs.

The resultant publicity from these climbs will not cause a massive influx of new climbers who immediately adopt the questionable ethics used.

The bulk of companies doing the sponsoring are not directly involved in climbing. Many, such as Adidas, have a connection with adventure/outdoor stuff.

Such companies are looking to flog leisurewear to the man in the street. The climbing fraternity is too niche to target.

The bulk of changes in ethic come from within the climbing community.

In reply to john arran:


More information about the previous ascents/attempts would be interesting. In particular, the 1991 Japanese route: rated at 5.10/A2 - but how many (if any?) bolts?

Meanwhile, in the current context: just don't buy anything made by Adidas. (I had no idea that company was 'targeting' the climbing market - but evidently it is.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Meanwhile, in the current context: just don't buy anything made by Adidas. (I had no idea that company was 'targeting' the climbing market - but evidently it is.)

Just in case you didn't know Adidas have owned Five Ten since 2011.
I'm more surprised they put Adidas on it not Five 10, but then Five Ten have a reputation to keep.

In reply to simonharpham:


Clearly it doesn't. But we're climbers and we like climbing, so when we see a big clean face with holds on it we naturally want to climb it. Of course there's a balance to be struck, particularly where there are in fact at least some options for removable gear, and as you say, popularity shouldn't be the only nor even the main factor. But for genuinely unprotectable walls the only voices I ever hear objecting to bolts are not from those wanting to climbing it themselves without, but from those not wanting others to climb it with.

I think more importantly that there's also a danger of confusing the style of ascent with the nature of the publicity. A bolted style may well be justified in some cases and the climbs established responsibly, but unless this is communicated to viewers there's a risk of portraying climbing and climbers as environmental vandals that could end up being damaging to the sport in a wider sense.

In reply to toad:

You're right - there is now the 'outdoor activity licence' that limits coasteering and climbing numbers from commercial groups and takes a cut of the money earned. I think it is meant to apply to anyone using land at swanage and other areas, but I don't know how much it would be enforced for small groups

In reply to Rob Parsons:
Adidas aren't targeting the climbing market, they are trying to get 'associated' with it to help them sell more jackets on the high street.

Adidas can see the huge market brands like The North Face have and they want a piece of it, the market however isn't with the outdoors it's with people who want to look the part, very few North Face jackets (as a % of thier sales) ever get used in anger in the mountains. The difference is that the brands such as North Face, Berghaus, Rab etc do have that 'Mountain Heritage' that people who aren't really 'outdoors people' buy in to. Many climbers no longer see brands such as the North Face as brands for genuine climbers but to your average purchaser who is wearing it to the pub and to work they are seen as cutting edge.

Adidas are trying to get themselves seen along side these brands but they'll struggle as they'll always have a much stronger association with trainers and tracksuits than they will with Alpine climbing, however with the massive budgets they have someone thinks it's worth trying.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Worth pointing out that amongst teenagers, TNF is the current 'brand de jour'.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Precisely the point I made.
Just the same as Red Bull wanting more fat people sitting in front of their TV guzzling sugary crap whilst watching some rad dudes doing exciting stuff. They aren't trying to sell to the rad dudes, and they aren't expecting anyone to get off the sofa.

In reply to UKC Articles:

differnt strokes for different folks

God didnt command to Moses the proper way of getting to the top of the mountain and no matter what way i choose to get there for whatever reasons doesnt make that the right way...just my way...

if people want to walk, trad climb, climb via fixed bolts or land on top from a bleedin helicopter thats their choice

theres a bit of snobbery (for want of a better name) in fact predjudice..... maybee from those who identify themselves as aspirant or fully fledged mountaineers towards "civvies" getting involved but doing things they wouldnt

reminds me of some footage I watched from the 60's or summat and it featured a british fella with white hair who was saying those who were climbing NF Eiger are suicidal and should be stopped......

my point being (i think) that new genrations will take their own approach and frankly not give a damn what the establishment" thinks of them and good on them its called progress

what I do decry is litter and poo

if you can take it up then you can take it down or (in case of a few turds) bury them deep.......

In reply to Shani:

About 10 years ago a one of the pubs near where I used to live had a sign up saying "No football colours. No North Face.", which says it all really.

In reply to UKC Articles: why not Adidas kit? They may not be associated with outdoors equipment in the UK but they sell a lot of kit in parts of Europe. If they offer a cheaper and technically viable alternative what makes them good or bad compared to Rab or Berghaus?

In reply to MikeSP:

If you want more reasons to dislike Adidas they stopped the production of the old style (and IMHO brilliant) niche approach shoe models so loved by many climbers. Please, some enlightened shoe company, renew that cross between the utility of a trainer with sticky rubber and the flexibility and sensitivity of a moccasin. Berghaus also stopped making a similar brilliant shoe.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not sure which one you mean, but is it possible they just rebranded it when they bought five ten?

In reply to wbo:


I think you are really missing out; climbing's history and its evolving culture are an immeasurable part of its richness.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Maybe not, but if it is these climbs which are thrust into the limelight, there might almost inevitably be an insidious creep in attitudes and approaches. We should at least not be complacent about their effect.

In reply to davidbeynon:

No, they put different soles on and ruined the models. I'd pay as new for a size 10 in good nick.

In reply to Andy Say:

"Exactly the same activities as those doing it recreationally" with an important exception, they are deriving income from use of the land, crag, etc. This is where my concern stems from.

In reply to Fruit:

I find the modern day commodification of climbing to be a sad trend, be it via equipment brands or the quest to collect routes, grades, whatever. Climbing is slowly being absorbed into the flow of postmodern culture.
Just go climbing for the joy of it.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Yes, nail on the head for me Mick. The idea that Nike and Adidas have any other interest than flogging shoes and clothing is idiotic. The climbing scene is just a means to an end for them, like it is for RedBull. But how to keep the bastards out of our turf? Don't buy their gear and pan their videos as vile marketing crap come to mind.

In reply to UKC Articles:


This is a view point not shared by most climbers worldwide. In most other countries bolting is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, perfectly acceptable and not a 'necessary evil'.

The affect human beings are having on the environment is absolutely horrendous. We are living through the sixth mass extinction of life on earth. This is the sixth event in hundreds of millions of years we are the cause. The world's rain forests, known as the lungs of the world because they provide air to breathe are being systematically destroyed. Ninety percent of large fish in the sea are now gone. The largest man made structure, and visible from the Moon, is massive garbage patch in the Pacific ocean. The earth's climate is changing at rapid rate. Glacier's that supply water to billions of people are melting and will soon be gone. The sea's are becoming acidified threatening key species in the food chain. I could go on and on.

But bolting is not part of this. There are no environmental campaigners trying to get bolting banned. Why would anyone waste their time? Bolting as an environmental concern is so far down the line as to be insignificant to almost everyone. The debate is only of interest amongst climbers, and even then mostly just some British and some American climbers.

The significance of bolts is that they reduce bold leads and unprotected climbing. The banning of bolts made good sense many years ago in this country. An agreed code of conduct preventing the last remaining big lines being accessible to almost anyone. To say that this had anything to do with the environmental impact is misleading. The rock doesn't care about bolts and most of the time they're invisible to almost everyone apart from climbers.


I watched the film and thought the bolting was strange just because of the huge amount of effort that seemed to required (along with expense) as compared to doing the route in a trad style. But the photography was so poor that you didn't get to see much of the rock anyway so it was hard to judge. Presumably they had a good reason to go to so much effort.

As for the environmental impact the most significant thing is surely flying across the globe just to go climbing. Such flights release a huge amount of CO2. If we want to debate the environmental impact of climbing that is the debate to be had. Not the damn bolts. Some climbers refuse to fly now because flying is so damaging to the environment.

In reply to john arran:


I think there is a good possibility that within our lifetimes, synthetic setae will be usable as traditional climbing protection - and these kind of 'blank' walls are exactly the place where they'll be most useful. While it is debatable to what degree, how expensive, when and whether to bother waiting etc - I think it's not accurate to say those walls would never be opened up without the aid of bolting.

In reply to stp:

Absolutely right. I've never understood why people go on about bolting as an environmental issue. It is about how we climb.

In reply to stp:

I agree with this and Robert's comments

In reply to Mick Ward:

How many climbers / the climbing community attempt to engage and educate the main stream media ?

I had a conversation with a well known member of the climbing media at KMF last year and their opinion was that climbing is for climbers and it's pointless connecting with the mainstream media as they don't understand 'our sport'. My point - which fell on deaf ears - was that surely to engage with them is to educate them, so when stories break they have a better grounding and understanding.

At last year's KMF I invited a BBC presenter who has a program on BBC World News to the festival, in the hope of opening up 'our world' to mainstream media. I also engaged them in the activities of Boardman Tasker Prize, in the hope that it would broaden the reach of the prize and facilitate a greater understanding of climbing / mountaineering. The same member of the climbing media said it was pointless, as they'd never 'get it' and that the BT Award isn't for the mainstream but for 'mountaineers'.


Why slate the media yet refuse to engage and educate them?

In reply to Henry Iddon:


I don't think it is as easy as that Henry.

A few years ago I had a heated debate with a prominent journalist who does get climbing, about an article by another prominent climbing journalist which appeared in the Daily Mail and was a litany of stupid climbing stereotypes, clinging by fingertips, and photos with captions that made no sense. As an article it just perpetuated stereotypes that frequently surface in the mainstream press when climbers and mountaineers need rescuing.

I asked the author why this article, with his name, was such a farcical piece and he explained carefully how the procedure works. What eventually gets published bears little relation to what he submits, but as a commercial proposition on his part, it made perfect sense - one trashy article could earn as much as all his other writing in a single month.

If you engage with the mainstream media then you have to be prepared to deal with this sort of thing. They don't want discussions about bolting; they want tragedy, images that look terrifying, crawling over glaciers, frost-bitten fingers, etc.

They really don't want to be educated since modern climbing is boring by tabloid standards. I think we are better off flying under the radar.

Alan

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Good points. Ed does well enough with mainstream crossover so really those attitudes are pretty lazy.

In reply to Henry Iddon:


Totally and utterly agree with this.



An excellent thing to do.


I've never understood why the media 'doesn't get it' about climbing/mountaineering. Surely it's not that hard - particularly in this country where we seem to have a reasonable cerebral media? When I was a kid, any mountaineering stories in the Belfast Telegraph were always spot on - I suspect because Barry White, the political editor and a former climber wrote or at least edited them. (His brother John was the first person to take me climbing - he's got a lot to answer for!) So it was done thirty, forty and fifty years ago.

I think it's unbelievably arrogant for us to try and 'go it alone'. Worse, I suspect we will be the poorer. We should be actively educating the mainstream media into what climbing is all about and why it matters so much. After all, the Victorians invented both mountaineering and rock-climbing as we know it. Their values - our values - of taking responsibility for our actions, of resilience, of comradeship - are precisely the values so sadly missing from our world today. The world has an awful lot to learn from climbing.

Totally agree with you.

Mick

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I'm sure that goes for most things, not just climbing. Just get on with it and not worry too much about what the outside world thinks.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Alan, however difficult it may be, I still think we should engage. With climbing in the Olympics (and speed climbing, ffs!) it seems to me that the greatest challenge to climbing in the years to come will the attempts to sanitise and package it for mass-consumption. It's the spirit of climbing which makes climbing worthwhile. So many other activities (e.g. many martial arts disciplines?) seem to have had their spirits surgically removed. I think we need to be proactive in ways such as Henry suggested.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


What you suggest here is admirable and it would be great if it worked that way. Being on the end of the phone that the mainstream media often get through to when they want a quote I can assure you that it isn't so simple to 'educate' them. On each of these phone calls I can sense their enthusiasm draining away as I try and dish out some reality and perspective onto the latest sensational click-bait they were hoping to scoop.

If 'going it alone' means continuing to publish authoritative, well-written and researched news and articles on places like UKClimbing, but not necessarily trying to engage with mainstream proactively (which is pretty much the way we run it currently here at UKC) then I think that is the best course for us at present. UKC will be the reference source for many stories that stir the interest of the press, so ensuring that is of the highest quality is a good place to start.

Actually pushing this stuff to the mainstream in the hope that they would take it on its merits, for it then to be subedited into something vaguely resembling a plot line out of Cliffhanger, is counterproductive IMHO.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I can remember being with Tim Lewis and his phone ringing intermittently! He'd do his best, bless him.



100% agreement. If this place has superb journalistic standards, then at least we're doing what we can to put our own house in order.

But I really like Henry's idea of involving a prominent media figure in climbing culture (I'm guessing this was somebody who cared, not just some hack). I can't see how this can do any harm. At least it's a start?

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

We have key people in these places already, and they do a great job, so in that sense we have already made a start. I am just wondering how much further we want to push it without triggering the 'Cliffhanger backlash' which I see as damaging.

I do agree that we are entering uncertain times though (and not just Trump/Brexit shizzle) and the Olympic effect could have profound implications for climbing in coming years. The very fact that speed climbing has been included is actually symptomatic of what I am talking about. Few real climbers have any interest in speed climbing, but the concept is easier to sell, so we have this camel of a competition being created to suit the TV stations and Olympic medal panel.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Every sport fractures in to 'specialisations' as it matures and develops, and this specialisation becomes acute with commercialisation.

With explicit regard to the Olympics, expect to see an impact on climbing, but the likely impact will probably fall disproportionately on indoor climbing and bouldering - as this is way more accessible, safer, more sanitised (you get to follow coloured holds of a known shape/size), in warm and dry conditions only a few meters from the café. And there is music playing! You might see more bolt-clippers heading out doors as a result, but whether it will lead to queues on Cloggy, I doubt. Whether you'll see speed climbers on London Wall - I also doubt.

So, let climbing evolve. It will be richer and more diverse. Expect mainstream bullshit and commercialisation to intrude, but we need to realise that it will largely impact on the indoor and competitive climbing world on artificial walls (with the odd trophy event such as Dawn Wall).

We still need to be vigilant about our wild places and managing them - but that is an issue that extends way beyond climbing.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Just to add my opinions...

I enjoyed the film. Yeah there was a lot of bolts used, but the difficulty and danger of this ascent maybe warranted that. I don't do much sport climbing but can't always grasp the when to bolt and when not to argument.

And, I don't understand the backlash regarding commercialization in climbing. I agree that there are companies who want to profit from the climbing without putting anything back into the sport or being aware of it as a whole culture, especially when it comes to social media. But why let them? Your every day, average rock climber controls the entire sport. If we don't want the likes of addidas in climbing, don't buy from them, don't be sponsored by them. Simple. Same with everything in the world, its consumer driven. If everyone bought sustainable clothes, there'd be far fewer sweat shops in the world. So, I see it as our choice whether this commercialization takes place. We can educate newcomers to the sport, carry out ethical practice ourselves and support the climbing culture in a sustainable way.

In reply to UKC Articles:

My big worry is that joe public thinks bolts are the normal way to climb, and then landowners regard this as the normal, giving rise to access problems.
Secondly that some group of (wall-bred ?) prats who think it's normal just turn up somewhere and start bolting, quite probably on a rock type (grit) for which it is completely inappropriate.

In reply to UKC Articles:

It's funny that bolted routes get so much more flak than routes reliant on pegs - ground up first ascent aid climbing with pegs is often far worse, and looks and feels a lot more like vandalism, but you never see gnarly bigwall aid climbers getting attacked on ukc :p

In reply to i_a_coops:


We're drifting off-topic here, but what would be a *specific* example you're thinking of in this regard?

At least the use of pegs *necessarily* only uses the existing features of the rock; that's a definite difference.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Specifically I was thinking of some pitches I just saw in Cochamo. I would contest that the use of pegs 'just' uses the existing features of the rock, it basically involves taking an existing hole in the rock that won't take gear, and then chipping it wider with a hammer! Then, getting pegs out often involves accidentally vandalising surrounding rock with a hammer, especially if you're aiding a seam at the back of a corner and the pegs are flush with the rock.

Having said that, I think an even bigger deal is probably cleaning off deeply entrenched plants and loose rock. The difference between an established route and unclimbed rock is often much greater than the difference between clean trad/pegged/sport!

In reply to UKC Articles:

yes increasing popularity and commercialisation is having the same impact across many outdoor pursuits.

I watched a program on TV last night about Blencathra in the Lakes, in which, a guy from the National Parks Fix the Fells group was being interviewed. The guy was saying that they have to bring in bulldozers to "improve" the paths ... in fact they are digging out and building ugly and artificial roadways up our mountains. The reason for this is because the National Parks are trying to attract more and more visitors and "open up" the mountains to all, partly in reaction to their reduced government funding.

So the issue is about, do you want to see more and more people enjoying the sport? If you do then be prepared to accept the historic culture, ethics and natural beauty are going to suffer along the way.

Perhaps selfishly, I would prefer the mountains and crags to remain as natural as possible.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Having now watched the film I'm some what under whelmed. Some climbers bolt a sport route ground up, that looks quite a hard thing to do. I like that they were up front about the bolting initially for aid and protection. They then fail to red point it and again they were up front about that.

Looks like Addidas picked up their costs in exchange for an endorsed video

I can see that if you object to all bolting then you would be horrified. But I don't see much protest these days to sport climbing as a concept

I've been savaged on here for asking a questions before. So please remember its a question not a statement.

Was what these guys did more commercial than the freeing of the Dawn Wall. Where their climbing ethics inferior to those used on the dawn Wall, ignoring for the moment the failure to red point. I'm not actually sure how the Dawn Wall was done but from my googling it appears that bolts were placed whilst hanging from a rope?

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

Very different situations

Dawn wall has 0.13 bolts per metre (most of these were already in place from existing routes), with plenty of big necky hard trad pitches

In reply to Mick Ward:
Fair comments Mick, however I think two points made by Mr Leah are subject to verification by known climbers. Firstly, are we to believe that someone of, for example, Dave Mc's ability couldn't free the first three pitches? I'm a strong believer that if you can't do it, either train like a beast or accept your genetic shortcomings. If I adopt Mr Leah's stance shall I go and bolt Echo Wall or the New Statesman etc to bring the ceiling down? Respectfully, he clearly is not the last word in climbing ability.

Second thought, regarding the bolting of other lines, is that again, we only have his word for this. It's unlikely that more than 1% of people reading this article will go to Sao Tome to witness this bolting. I'm not suggesting he is utilising that fact to justify his actions but my point is a fair one although perhaps also easier to prove than point one in the short term.

It wouldn't be the first time a climber has been dishonest or economical with the truth. A young lad trying to make a name for himself, gets in a pickle and has to think fast to save face. It's not unthinkable.

I think we should remain impartial until his comments are validated or not.

In reply to Fishmate:
Or, you know, you could take him at his word until you have some reason to insinuate that he's lying.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Why not play around with the mainstream press and enjoy feeding them some overdramatised story they will want to print. Feed them a pack of overexaggerated lies and just enjoy the fallout. I remember in the 90's, the grunge explosion when most of the bands would do interviews and spew complete and utter rubbish and the news lapped it up. Everybody that was part of it knew but it was funny. Try and be more rock and roll. Vertical Limit is a wonderful piece of cinema.

In reply to Lemony:

Not wanting to m

Not wanting to get personal over this I haven't suggested that, however the notion that it is unclimbable by traditional methods doesn't seem acceptable coming from him. That was my point. If anyone can say that, then my points stand up. Shall I start claiming the same myself? Should you? Is that ok? I was trying to initiate debate, so I'm sorry I failed you in that respect

In reply to UKC Articles:
I was on an expedition to Kyrgyzstan a few years ago, it was reasonably successful we climbed a few things but failed on a few others. Later expeditions to the area seemed to have a different view, if they couldn't get to the top because it was too hard or too dangerous they claimed the ascent and named the peak anyway but just stated they hadn't quite been good enough to get to the summit. Honest certainly and I can understand their point of view they, the same as us, had invested a lot of time and money into organising an expedition and to come away with nothing would be incredibly disappointing.

Unfortunately that's not the point, you either climb something or you don't and if you aren't good enough or brave enough then you come back when you are or leave it for someone else who is. No matter how much time effort and money you have sunk into organising your expedition you can't buy the climb. And that is what rankles me here. It sounds like bolting a huge sports route on the crag may not be out of character for the ethics of the area and the rock type. But once you have a sports route you climb it, as you would a multi pitch sports route. and if you discover you can't because it is too hard then you just can't claim it, its a project. Bad luck and better luck next time.

In reply to Fishmate:

Retrobolting established routes in areas with a rock solid no bolt ethic bears no comparison.

In reply to UKC Articles:
This article is trying to conflate three separate issues.

1. Bolted vs trad routes, the age old debate. A question of climbing ethics and a grey area when it comes to opening new routes in far away places where there is no established ethic.

2. Damaging the rock. A question of aesthetics and perceived environmental impact. I think this is a complete red herring, given that flying / driving to the climbing destination, trampling vegetation to get to the crag, cleaning the route and so on has more environmental impact.

3. Commercialisation of climbing. So what? If some people make their living from climbing, good on them. If a large company wants to make a film about climbing, great, another film to watch. The general public might get a certain impression of climbing but it's not an activity which is well understood anyway. At the end of the day, we climb for ourselves. Commercialisation shouldn't really impact that.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Agree with your first paragraph about 'going climbing and that's it' - not being affected by 'commercialisation'. In fact it's a good thing as we get better gear.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Spot on!

In reply to Franco Cookson:


But climbers have always talked about each others ascents. Nice quote here for instance, for those who appreciate a bit of history:
'A code of ethics exists in rock climbing which is adhered to by most. It has evolved over many years and reflects what are felt to be good and bad styles of ascent. However, it is not a list of rules and the penalty for ignoring them cannot affect a climber's freedom to climb but only his reputation, which will be discussed by other climbers in the pub, cafe, or gym [or UKC forum]' - David Jones, 1984 (Rock Climbing in Britain).

& it's not just about hard grades.. every ascent is an act of climbing and therefore something we can talk about. The more it is publicised the more it is open to our talk. But you must know this surely

Hm, your comment also makes me think.. connected to a point already made about irony.. Is this article really attempting to provoke an honest talk about ethics or presenting cynical clickbate to get people using a commercial service?

In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Vertical limit is the worst piece of shite ever made, something I waited through out of morbid curiousity only recently. What a ridiculous film! The most poigniant comment made so far on this thread was stp's. I think that if someone went and bolted a lot of the hard welsh classics tomorrow it would be far less tragic than the inevitable (and currently visible) impacts of human existence on this planet. Shouldn't we (even the only onsight over no pads ever trad climbers) all have far greater concerns in our personal or social lives, than whether a piece of rock should be bolted or not?

I've seen a number lines put up by foreigners that have come to a place with a drill and bolts and just bolt a line where ever they like, with no respect for the areas ethics or laws. The way this film was made makes one think this was the case, but is this just a case of poor editing?

I wonder with some different editing like mentioning the impossibility of trad, the fact that there are already a number of bolted but incomplete lines and if they had completed the climb cleanly what the comments would be.

Personally I feel the climbers had grown up on sport climbing so this is what they aimed for (please correct me but this is what I took away from the video). May be another group of people would have searched for the line of least resistance and managed to trad climb the cliff, or at least climbed the cliff placing only a few bolts, to me that would have been a better goal.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I think it's a shame that an article about commercialisation of climbing focuses so much on a single example, this is a much wider issue than that video (which I haven't watched yet).

Here's a disclaimer - I work for adidas. And I'm not in any way sticking up for the video - actually I doubt I need to because I like to think that the ethical decisions in videos like this are made by the climbers themselves. This is obviously the critical point and what we need to keep debating and be conscious of - are climbers making these decisions for the right reasons or are the sponsors convincing them to push things into dodgy areas. The recent David Lama thing on Cerro Torre seemed to cross the line but got debated and ended reasonably well, and of course we didn't need big money to cause problems on that mountain in the past, egos are often enough.

A company like adidas can do a number of things to our sport, some positive and some negative but as others have said this is mainly about the mass market not about "us". We just need to stay rooted, get out and enjoy climbing and try and pass on to the next generation what we all think is important (and yes that's partly why history is important and it's also mega inspiring).

To my mind the biggest mistake we've made in recent times is getting involved with the Olympics, that would have been a much better example for an article like this, here's the latest legacy: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2017/feb/10/rios-olympic-venues-s...

And fair play to UKC for publishing an article like this and having the debate given how they need to make their money!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Really? They have an ad which completely occupies the first two pages of the current issue of 'Alpinist.'

In reply to Fishmate:

Hi,

Look I don't want to be arguing with you. I'll just make two points and leave it.


I'm almost certain he could! But then these guys wanted an entirely free version themselves - and presumbably would have freed it themselves if they hadn't run out of time (and weren't shagged senseless by the struggle of cleaning/bolting). So I'm not sure of your point. If you're suggesting Dave Mc could have done it without bolts, well we're back to the feasibility of this route without bolts. Are there suitable cracks for gear? We don't know.



True but surely if there aren't other bolted attempts/lines, it will come out in the wash. I see absolutely no reason to doubt Gareth Leah and will happily accept his word (as one would of any fellow climber) unless there is compelling evidence otherwise.



Totally agree.

Mick

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Means to an end. They want the association, the readership of Alpinist is 'tiny' compared to the global sales of outdoor clothing. The cost of that ad to Adidas will be totally negligable in the size of thier marketing budget.

Many years ago Ford made a 4x4 that had a North Face badge on the back, Ford Maverick I think. They weren't aiming at selling to climbers they were trying to make thier car appear more outdoorsy and 'rugged'. They had a few ads in climbing magazines though to help build the image.

In reply to Misha:


You should not conflate aesthetics and environmental impact. While bolts and worn out holds/damaged rock are of negligible environmental concern, they do significantly alter the aesthetics of the climbing experience.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not to mention the nature of the sporting challenge.

In reply to UKC Articles:

IMO a lot of the objections are down to what is the motivation. We have a rich history of amateur, competent, enthusiasm in the UK which has led to a climbing culture that is fairly unique and should be treasured. Many of us older climbers dislike the creeping commercialism of climbing and this seems to be a typical example. Many of us would have far more respect for any first ascent if it appeared to be two lads going out and having an adventure. Seeking glory, publicity and sponsorship just does not sit right with many of us. That's how I feel and no amount of debate will change that. I do, however, love the multitude of shiny new gear that is now available courtesy of this commercialism so it's not all bad

Al

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: You say they have no real interrest, but if that's the case then they've been doing it for a long time. Adidas have been trying to get a presence in outdoor sports for some years, although the UK has not been their focus.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Thanks Robert, not being a trad lad, the retrobolting issue isn't obvious to the uninitiated but that makes sense.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Cheers Mick, as I said in reply to Mr Durran's response, my knowledge of the trad ethic is minimal beyond the concepts themselves. Obviously the practice of these concepts makes the knowledge whole, so my thoughts are part of the need to learn. I don't know Mr Leah, however think all options should be acknowledged if not bought into, hence you agreeing with my final comment. Having only 6 years experience of climbing, I put my thoughts out there, listen and learn. As such you wont find an argument with me on any matter. All the best

In reply to john arran:

Totally agree here with John. Get your arse down there and get on it before you whinge.
I get pissed off when I hear people giving shit for doing something like this. Especially when they say that someone like Dave Mc could do in much better style. Well, maybe he could but he was not there.

Why do people think you should leave anything that looks hard or in the middle of nowhere to the likes of Dave Mc, McHaffie, John A or some unknown German who climbs 8c+. Other "punters" have goals, dreams and the vision to try routes like this and good for them.

Yes, the video was not the greatest and could have done with less drill footage which Gareth mentioned but as a mate of mine likes to say when people moan about new routes "yeah it sucks to be second" So true.