This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The IFSC has announced the signing of a 3-year deal with US-based sports livestreaming company Flosports to host IFSC World Cup climbing events on its platform. From now on, spectators are required to pay a subscription fee of up to £120 per year to watch the full IFSC series of livestreams. The service will be in place from this weekend's IFSC Boulder World Cup event in Meiringen, Switzerland.Read more There's another thread discussing it here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=661645
28
In reply to UKC News:
This move is an insult to the thousands of climbers who enjoy watching the WC events online. They are the ones being sold to the highest bidder, most will be priced out of watching, and the sport surely will suffer as a result. As a matter of principle I would not subscribe, even though I was looking forward to watching this weekend's boulder WC.
Unless we hear something more convincing from the IFSC I would hope that others would also refuse to subscribe, even if the cost for them personally is not prohibitive. I think that would be the best way to get the message across that climbers are not happy.
This move is an insult to the thousands of climbers who enjoy watching the WC events online. They are the ones being sold to the highest bidder, most will be priced out of watching, and the sport surely will suffer as a result. As a matter of principle I would not subscribe, even though I was looking forward to watching this weekend's boulder WC.
Unless we hear something more convincing from the IFSC I would hope that others would also refuse to subscribe, even if the cost for them personally is not prohibitive. I think that would be the best way to get the message across that climbers are not happy.
55
In reply to UKC News:
Some huge blunders from the IFSC recently:
- Triple format inc speed climbing for the Olympics
- Removal of the 4+ rule in the bouldering, killing suspense
- Slashing audience viewing of comps by ~90% in order to make a quick bit of cash
How do you start a motion of no confidence against the IFSC?
Some huge blunders from the IFSC recently:
- Triple format inc speed climbing for the Olympics
- Removal of the 4+ rule in the bouldering, killing suspense
- Slashing audience viewing of comps by ~90% in order to make a quick bit of cash
How do you start a motion of no confidence against the IFSC?
34
1
In reply to samwillo:
To be fair the triple format may well have been the best outcome possible in the circumstances, and viewed as a stepping stone towards individual event inclusion. I agree with your other points.
I wonder if the 4+ rule was a prerequisite insisted upon by Flosports? That would compound the problem considerably.
To be fair the triple format may well have been the best outcome possible in the circumstances, and viewed as a stepping stone towards individual event inclusion. I agree with your other points.
I wonder if the 4+ rule was a prerequisite insisted upon by Flosports? That would compound the problem considerably.
5
2
In reply to UKC News:
'allow the IFSC to invest more resources than ever before into Sport Climbing'
So, are the IFSC going to subsidise replacing bolts in existing SPORT CLIMBING locations ?
Or are they instead going to continue claiming to control SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.
The former has a large number of participants, the latter has a fraction of the participants.
'allow the IFSC to invest more resources than ever before into Sport Climbing'
So, are the IFSC going to subsidise replacing bolts in existing SPORT CLIMBING locations ?
Or are they instead going to continue claiming to control SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.
The former has a large number of participants, the latter has a fraction of the participants.
3
2
In reply to Pete Dangerous:
It's a change to the format of the finals so that each climber has a fixed time available, whereas previously there was an "I've started so I'll finish" option after the time ran out.
> What's this 4+ rule please?
It's a change to the format of the finals so that each climber has a fixed time available, whereas previously there was an "I've started so I'll finish" option after the time ran out.
9
In reply to john arran:
The triple format was "strongly suggested" by the IOC. Only one medal was available, and all 3 disciplines needed to be represented.
> To be fair the triple format may well have been the best outcome possible in the circumstances, and viewed as a stepping stone towards individual event inclusion. I agree with your other points.I wonder if the 4+ rule was a prerequisite insisted upon by Flosports? That would compound the problem considerably.
The triple format was "strongly suggested" by the IOC. Only one medal was available, and all 3 disciplines needed to be represented.
In reply to Ian W:
Hence "the best outcome possible in the circumstances", at least in the short-term.
> The triple format was "strongly suggested" by the IOC. Only one medal was available, and all 3 disciplines needed to be represented.
Hence "the best outcome possible in the circumstances", at least in the short-term.
3
In reply to fred99:
Its nothing to with sport climbing outdoors as we in the UK understand it. In this context read competition climbing. You would have to look to the UIAA for your bolts, as they are the only international federation that supports and sanctions competitions on natural rock.
Anyway, fred99, welcome back. I dont believe you have emerged from your cloak of anonimity after asking several of us to do so. So who are you?
> 'allow the IFSC to invest more resources than ever before into Sport Climbing'So, are the IFSC going to subsidise replacing bolts in existing SPORT CLIMBING locations ?Or are they instead going to continue claiming to control SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.The former has a large number of participants, the latter has a fraction of the participants.
Its nothing to with sport climbing outdoors as we in the UK understand it. In this context read competition climbing. You would have to look to the UIAA for your bolts, as they are the only international federation that supports and sanctions competitions on natural rock.
Anyway, fred99, welcome back. I dont believe you have emerged from your cloak of anonimity after asking several of us to do so. So who are you?
Post edited at 11:10
5
In reply to john arran:
Indeed. It was the only possible outcome in the prevailing circumstances! I too wonder about the 4+ / strictly 4 rule as well. We tried it at the youth open last weekend, and in my opinion, made very little difference to the timing of the comp final. It certainly didnt help the suspense element; competitors would look at the clock, see 2 0seconds to go and think "meh, no point" rather than giving it one last big effort.
> Hence "the best outcome possible in the circumstances", at least in the short-term.
Indeed. It was the only possible outcome in the prevailing circumstances! I too wonder about the 4+ / strictly 4 rule as well. We tried it at the youth open last weekend, and in my opinion, made very little difference to the timing of the comp final. It certainly didnt help the suspense element; competitors would look at the clock, see 2 0seconds to go and think "meh, no point" rather than giving it one last big effort.
5
In reply to UKC News:
A poor idea - the sport as a viewing experience is in its infancy and still not quite there yet, poor streams, poor camera work etc. To try and moneytise the sport so early on seems counter productive to getting a good base audience interested in the sport.
I won't be purchasing the streams as much as I did enjoy watching the series over the previous seasons.
A poor idea - the sport as a viewing experience is in its infancy and still not quite there yet, poor streams, poor camera work etc. To try and moneytise the sport so early on seems counter productive to getting a good base audience interested in the sport.
I won't be purchasing the streams as much as I did enjoy watching the series over the previous seasons.
8
In reply to john arran:
I see. Thanks.
> It's a change to the format of the finals so that each climber has a fixed time available, whereas previously there was an "I've started so I'll finish" option after the time ran out.
I see. Thanks.
In reply to UKC News:
I took the liberty of emailing the bods at the IFSC in addition to venting on social media and signing the petition and got this reply from their media/press relations officer Pierre-Emmanuel DANGER :
and suitable content that is free.
Please know that much coverage and content is free to the wor ld. Live events, original documentaries and a few
other, select content offering are kept premium. We will share with our fans free highlight reels, recaps, behindthe-
scenes moments and much more. Stay tuned to IFSC and FloSports on line platforms for all the latest
highlights, before, during and after the events!
Emails: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ac4fs93c9hp5qjl/Gmail%20-%20World%20Cup%20Streami...
Hopefully, they will include the full replay in the free content.
I took the liberty of emailing the bods at the IFSC in addition to venting on social media and signing the petition and got this reply from their media/press relations officer Pierre-Emmanuel DANGER :
> The IFSC mission remains to develop sport climbing. With this agreement, we hope to deliver premium sport
climbing videos to a broader audience, in addition to optimizing our YouTube channel with consistent, impactfuland suitable content that is free.
Please know that much coverage and content is free to the wor ld. Live events, original documentaries and a few
other, select content offering are kept premium. We will share with our fans free highlight reels, recaps, behindthe-
scenes moments and much more. Stay tuned to IFSC and FloSports on line platforms for all the latest
highlights, before, during and after the events!
Emails: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ac4fs93c9hp5qjl/Gmail%20-%20World%20Cup%20Streami...
Hopefully, they will include the full replay in the free content.
3
In reply to Ian W:
The whole point of my post was to point out their claim to SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.
A point that those of you so heavily involved in competion climbing seem to want to sweep under the carpet.
As for anonymity, I'll stay where I am, just like a large percentage of UKC posters.
All I did was point out that people with vested financial interests - such as yourself - were repeatedly posting (and being the top posters to boot) under an individual name, and all your posts effectively were in what I believe to be your financial interests.
When I was on committees I always declared any interest at the very beginning, and then after stating my position, stood to one side.
What we have on this forum is a very large input to the debate from those with vested financial interests, which is not the most democratic way of having a discussion.
The whole point of my post was to point out their claim to SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.
A point that those of you so heavily involved in competion climbing seem to want to sweep under the carpet.
As for anonymity, I'll stay where I am, just like a large percentage of UKC posters.
All I did was point out that people with vested financial interests - such as yourself - were repeatedly posting (and being the top posters to boot) under an individual name, and all your posts effectively were in what I believe to be your financial interests.
When I was on committees I always declared any interest at the very beginning, and then after stating my position, stood to one side.
What we have on this forum is a very large input to the debate from those with vested financial interests, which is not the most democratic way of having a discussion.
2
5
In reply to Justin Reid:
If they do, maybe we can get an agreement between all the major climbing news sources not to publish any results until the replay stream is available
> Hopefully, they will include the full replay in the free content.
If they do, maybe we can get an agreement between all the major climbing news sources not to publish any results until the replay stream is available
5
In reply to Justin Reid:
>Hopefully, they will include the full replay in the free content.
It won't - all streams are recorded and added to the video library available to Flo subscribers.
>Hopefully, they will include the full replay in the free content.
It won't - all streams are recorded and added to the video library available to Flo subscribers.
2
2
In reply to fred99:
I dont think you get it, or don't want to get; the meaning of the phrase sport climbing is different here to elsewhere.
I would love to be able to make £££ from climbing - my chalk business is very very small (and also sells to outdoor climbers), and i dont profit in any way from other comp activities; i do it because i enjoy it and want to help comps and the GB team.
The input from myself, Graeme Alderson and others has not been rom our vested interests, as you put it, but from a desire to get the truth out there; something in short supply from Bob P, Doug S et al.
And as to your continued anonimity; if you are not wiling to abide by the same standards of disclosure and openness you expect of others.............
I dont think you get it, or don't want to get; the meaning of the phrase sport climbing is different here to elsewhere.
I would love to be able to make £££ from climbing - my chalk business is very very small (and also sells to outdoor climbers), and i dont profit in any way from other comp activities; i do it because i enjoy it and want to help comps and the GB team.
The input from myself, Graeme Alderson and others has not been rom our vested interests, as you put it, but from a desire to get the truth out there; something in short supply from Bob P, Doug S et al.
And as to your continued anonimity; if you are not wiling to abide by the same standards of disclosure and openness you expect of others.............
5
2
In reply to:
£16 a month, bloody nora. Comp climbing is fairly shit to watch even as a climber. Netflix is a fiver a month and whilst still being absolutely shit, its not quite as shit as watching people boulder indoors in redbull hats with weird tape all over themselves.
£16 a month, bloody nora. Comp climbing is fairly shit to watch even as a climber. Netflix is a fiver a month and whilst still being absolutely shit, its not quite as shit as watching people boulder indoors in redbull hats with weird tape all over themselves.
Post edited at 13:55
31
1
In reply to fred99:
Competition climbing is referred to as Sport Climbing in Europe. What we refer to as sport climbing is just referred to as climbing on the continent and in fact most of the world, given that ~90% of routes are bolted.
> 'allow the IFSC to invest more resources than ever before into Sport Climbing'So, are the IFSC going to subsidise replacing bolts in existing SPORT CLIMBING locations ?Or are they instead going to continue claiming to control SPORT climbing rather than COMPETITION climbing.The former has a large number of participants, the latter has a fraction of the participants.
Competition climbing is referred to as Sport Climbing in Europe. What we refer to as sport climbing is just referred to as climbing on the continent and in fact most of the world, given that ~90% of routes are bolted.
Post edited at 21:10
3
In reply to samwillo:
Sam - agreed. IFSC has made some incredibly short sighted decisions recently, all under the auspices of sucking up to the IOC.
I have been opposed to Olympic Participation for years, and retain this opposition. The IOC is a corrupt organization, and I can see no good coming from climbing prostrating our sport on that particular alter.
Sam - agreed. IFSC has made some incredibly short sighted decisions recently, all under the auspices of sucking up to the IOC.
I have been opposed to Olympic Participation for years, and retain this opposition. The IOC is a corrupt organization, and I can see no good coming from climbing prostrating our sport on that particular alter.
11
I signed the petition and refuse to encourage this fleecing of climbers by subscribing. If they wanted to monetize they could sell more ads. To add insult to injury, they want to capture your info (email address, FB ID), presumably to sell it to any and all comers, before you even get to the page with rates information. Double lame. Can we vote out the IFSC leadership? What is the governance structure?
2
In reply to shouldbebetter:
I totally agree, and this pay per view doesn't surprise me at all. I still don't get why some climbers want climbing in the Olympics...
I totally agree, and this pay per view doesn't surprise me at all. I still don't get why some climbers want climbing in the Olympics...
3
1
In reply to UKC News:
Email from the petition organiser this morning suggests some positive movement on this. Fingers crossed...
Email from the petition organiser this morning suggests some positive movement on this. Fingers crossed...
1
In reply to UKC News:
GOOD NEWS (for now...)
http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/item/910-meiringen-world-cup-fr...
GOOD NEWS (for now...)
http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/item/910-meiringen-world-cup-fr...
3
In reply to UKC News:
The IFSC have again demonstrated that not only are they out of touch with the community, they also have no respect for it. As they steer the sport along a path of increasing commercialisation and institutionalisation, they lurch from poor decision to poor decision, as mentioned by various contributors to this thread.
Commercialisation and institutionalisation seem to be an inevitable part of climbing's evolution so it's essential that we have a body that is competent, representative, and accountable. Instead, we have the IFSC making this announcement at very short notice giving the impression that it has been made incredibly hastily and without proper consideration. Not only is the pricing completely outrageous, they have gone into a partnership with a company that seems to have a wealth of dissatisfied customers for providing a substandard service.
It's time to overhaul the IFSC as clearly they are either incompetent or cannot be trusted. I'm not sure which is worse.
The IFSC have again demonstrated that not only are they out of touch with the community, they also have no respect for it. As they steer the sport along a path of increasing commercialisation and institutionalisation, they lurch from poor decision to poor decision, as mentioned by various contributors to this thread.
Commercialisation and institutionalisation seem to be an inevitable part of climbing's evolution so it's essential that we have a body that is competent, representative, and accountable. Instead, we have the IFSC making this announcement at very short notice giving the impression that it has been made incredibly hastily and without proper consideration. Not only is the pricing completely outrageous, they have gone into a partnership with a company that seems to have a wealth of dissatisfied customers for providing a substandard service.
It's time to overhaul the IFSC as clearly they are either incompetent or cannot be trusted. I'm not sure which is worse.
2
In reply to Ian W:
As I have repeatedly said, I am an individual, using a nickname.
Those who know me can confirm that, but there is no way that I will hand over any personal details to a public forum, particularly when I am suspicious as to why such details are regarded as a necessity from an aggressive poster.
Who is Durbs (above), or Only a hill, Rom the Bear, and whilst I do know him, one could even include Offwidth (who I have met). Do you insist that they give their full legal name on this forum ?
As I have also repeatedly said, the most frequent posters on this type of subject have what is usually referred to as "an interest".
It is, at any meeting, normal procedure for anyone on the top table to declare their interest and then excuse themselves from the top table for the duration of the item.
Here however you (and Graham Alderson) both have an interest, but are representing yourselves as simply individuals.
I do not believe for one moment that your professional interests are not being served by your posts. Unfortunately I do not know if there are others in the same mind.
> .And as to your continued anonimity.............
As I have repeatedly said, I am an individual, using a nickname.
Those who know me can confirm that, but there is no way that I will hand over any personal details to a public forum, particularly when I am suspicious as to why such details are regarded as a necessity from an aggressive poster.
Who is Durbs (above), or Only a hill, Rom the Bear, and whilst I do know him, one could even include Offwidth (who I have met). Do you insist that they give their full legal name on this forum ?
As I have also repeatedly said, the most frequent posters on this type of subject have what is usually referred to as "an interest".
It is, at any meeting, normal procedure for anyone on the top table to declare their interest and then excuse themselves from the top table for the duration of the item.
Here however you (and Graham Alderson) both have an interest, but are representing yourselves as simply individuals.
I do not believe for one moment that your professional interests are not being served by your posts. Unfortunately I do not know if there are others in the same mind.
1
In reply to fred99:
Those who know me can confirm that, but there is no way that I will hand over any personal details to a public forum, particularly when I am suspicious as to why such details are regarded as a necessity from an aggressive poster.
Am I the aggressive poster, or someone else? I'm only asking you to act consistently with your requests of others.
Who is Durbs (above), or Only a hill, Rom the Bear, and whilst I do know him, one could even include Offwidth (who I have met). Do you insist that they give their full legal name on this forum ?
No, but they didnt demand that I did. Although I have never posted anonymously.
As I have also repeatedly said, the most frequent posters on this type of subject have what is usually referred to as "an interest".
We do, but it is our knowledge coming from that interest (and involvement) that has led to our feeling the ned to post. If some of it comes across as aggressive, then apologies, but it is hugely frustrating to have to repeatedly counter lies, distortions and fantasies that people seem to want to believe.
It is, at any meeting, normal procedure for anyone on the top table to declare their interest and then excuse themselves from the top table for the duration of the item.Here however you (and Graham Alderson) both have an interest, but are representing yourselves as simply individuals.
Again - we are not exactly hiding our identities and interests!
I do not believe for one moment that your professional interests are not being served by your posts. Unfortunately I do not know if there are others in the same mind.
If you believe that, then you are wrong. Our interests here are served only by trying to get the truth out into the open, for the furtherance of competition climbing, which both Graeme and I believe in, and to counter the bs that is far too prevalent.
Anyway, please PM me if you want any further proof.
> As I have repeatedly said, I am an individual, using a nickname.
Those who know me can confirm that, but there is no way that I will hand over any personal details to a public forum, particularly when I am suspicious as to why such details are regarded as a necessity from an aggressive poster.
Am I the aggressive poster, or someone else? I'm only asking you to act consistently with your requests of others.
Who is Durbs (above), or Only a hill, Rom the Bear, and whilst I do know him, one could even include Offwidth (who I have met). Do you insist that they give their full legal name on this forum ?
No, but they didnt demand that I did. Although I have never posted anonymously.
As I have also repeatedly said, the most frequent posters on this type of subject have what is usually referred to as "an interest".
We do, but it is our knowledge coming from that interest (and involvement) that has led to our feeling the ned to post. If some of it comes across as aggressive, then apologies, but it is hugely frustrating to have to repeatedly counter lies, distortions and fantasies that people seem to want to believe.
It is, at any meeting, normal procedure for anyone on the top table to declare their interest and then excuse themselves from the top table for the duration of the item.Here however you (and Graham Alderson) both have an interest, but are representing yourselves as simply individuals.
Again - we are not exactly hiding our identities and interests!
I do not believe for one moment that your professional interests are not being served by your posts. Unfortunately I do not know if there are others in the same mind.
If you believe that, then you are wrong. Our interests here are served only by trying to get the truth out into the open, for the furtherance of competition climbing, which both Graeme and I believe in, and to counter the bs that is far too prevalent.
Anyway, please PM me if you want any further proof.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...