UKC

On Monday I attended the NW Area meeting at which the recent BMC organisational review was presented and discussed. One of the significant questions raised at the meeting was why the review had given such prominence to competition climbing as a core activity in the BMC's future and why it was being proposed to permanently embed the governance of competition climbing in the new constitution (i.e. within the new memoranda and articles of association)

In his opening remarks Rab Carrington referred to the results of the recently completed members survey and said that these showed that the membership wanted the BMC to represent all aspects of climbing and were not therefore in favour of competition climbing developing its own separate governing body.

When describing the new memoranda and articles of association the review chairperson, Ray Wrigglesworth, was at pains to stress that independent legal advice had been integral to their drafting and that they reflected what the law required of a modern voluntary organisation. When it was pointed out that the decision to formally include the governance of competition climbing in the memoranda and articles of association was a policy decision rather than a legal requirement, Ray asserted that this had been done because that was what the members had said they wanted in the recent survey. In fact he repeated this claim several times.

At the time of the meeting the results of the member survey had not been made public. But they are now. And they show

- that supporting and governing competition climbing was the area of activity deemed to be a low priority by the largest number of BMC members

- that in terms of satisfaction with the BMC's performance, supporting and governing competition climbing achieved the highest level of dissatisfaction

- that amongst BMC members hill walking scored the highest level of participation, followed by rock climbing, mountaineering and finally indoor climbing*

*the level of participation in competition climbing was not recorded but it is probably safe to assume that had it been then it would have been at the very bottom of the list.

So have BMC members shown through their responses to the survey that they wanted the BMC to be responsible for ALL aspects of climbing? Well it was not a question that was actually asked as far as I can see.

And have BMC members, as Rab asserted, also shown that they are against the idea of competition climbing developing its own independent governing body. Again, the question was never asked.

In other threads on the subject of the organisational review much has already been said by individuals about what the future of BMC should look like and that is a very important part of the debate.

But in a supposedly democratic organisation it is also important to reflect accurately and without bias what we are hearing from the main body of the membership in the opinion survey that we have commissioned.

Sadly, I am not at all sure that this is what has happened so far.

In reply to colin struthers:

Whereabouts are the results of the membership survey? A quick google didnt turn anything up.

In reply to remus:

Here you go,

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisational%20Review%20Member...

In reply to colin struthers:
Despite all the management and legal talk and juggling of figures and statements to support what appears to a be decision already made, the essence of all the recent issues seems to boil down to one simple fact. Do the membership believe that the BMC should change in order to represent and support in one way or another, competition climbing? Perhaps they could simplify matters by implementing a referendum. It should after all be much easier than the Brexit one. I believe that the majority would say no, but then I got the Brexit one wrong

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Your wording of the questions shows your opinion. Playing Devil’s advocate, one could word the question, “Does the membership believe that the BMC should change in order to exclude competition climbing?”

The BMC is the de facto representative body of competition climbing in the UK. I assume you don’t want that to continue?

In reply to galpinos:

How about this for a form of words?

A. Do you want the BMC to be the Governing Body for competition climbing and for this to be written into the organisation's memoranda and articles of association?

or

B. Do you want the BMC to support and assist competition climbers in setting up their own independent Governing Body and to develop a future relationship with this body that is amicable and constructive?

In reply to colin struthers:

Oh, f*ck off.

In reply to john arran:

That was an intelligent contribution. Any other pearls of wisdom you'd like to share?

In reply to colin struthers:

You've come on here peddling wedges in our climbing community many times over the last year or two, and every time as I recall you've received an overwhelming response that your view is very much out of sync with climbers in general.
As far as I recall you've not demonstrated any logic, you've ignored precedent, and you've pretended that your particular fanatic obsession with institutional self-destruction is shared by more than a tiny proportion of others. There's only a certain number of times you can misrepresent the same issue before people no longer choose to spend their valuable time giving reasoned responses that we know will only get ignored in favour of your destructive dogma. I no longer feel it's worth the time and effort to continue offering reasoned responses. Hence my somewhat curt but heartfelt reply.

Edit: to anybody new to this who thinks maybe I'm being a bit harsh, please review some of Colin's previous thread contributions before judging.

In reply to john arran:



Had a quick look, can't see anything very controversial. I think it's bonkers having one body, but if members really want it, so be it. His OP, and the general trend of events, suggest however, it is a fait accompli being justified by dubious "surveys" and the like, which is concerning.

In reply to colin struthers:
I really do not feel a need to keep my views secret. I do not think the BMC should represent in any way competition climbing other than to provide support in setting up a separate organisation. IMO competition climbing is more about entertainment and making money than it is about traditional climbing/mountaineering/walking values and has more in common with gymnastics than the activity that I took up. The inevitable outcome would be that the views and emphasis of the BMC would change to reflect this new environment, possibly, to the detriment of the old values. It doesn't make me right but that is my opinion.The report seems to be mostly "flim flam" and filibustering.

Al

In reply to colin struthers:

I’ll have Yes to A please Bob, well....... Colin.

In reply to colin struthers: you will straight away cause there to be setup an alternative organization to look after comps and shortly after all matters climbing wall related and all manner of related funding.

And because the BMC won't have comps, the alternative will 'win'

To what end? What do you want?

In reply to john arran:

I'm standing in the corner of the BMC Peak area meeting right now. It's interesting to compare Ray Wigglesworth description of the NW area meeting and Colin's above. He seemed quite upset that about "half the younger people" and the one woman present left the meeting early due to the continuous interruptions and shouting out of a group of men at the meeting. They felt they couldn't really present their report properly due to this. I wonder if Colin would comment on whether his recollection of the meeting agrees with this?

Lots of tough and some technical questions so far here in the Peak, but all very civil (society) so far!

In reply to TobyA:

Wasn’t planning on getting involved in this, but it’s only fair to put the record straight re the NW area meeting...

It wasn’t a particularly rowdy or disruptive affair. If Ray W thought so, his experiences must have been more sheltered than I would imagine for a QC! Just as well he wasn’t exposed to one of the previous bolting debates at a Black Dog meeting!

Sure, there were some heartfelt views put forward, but nothing personal against anyone in the room. I thought the meeting was conducted reasonably well and, let’s face it, the problem with presenting was more to do with trying to put 40,000 words in to a couple of hours whilst allowing discussion. And discussion was the main reason for the meeting, otherwise we could have stayed at home and read the report at our leisure.

So, although I didn’t agree with all the views expressed on Monday, I think it’s wrong to portray the meeting as some sort of shouting match that drove attendees away.

In reply to TobyA:

For the record there were two women present and one has subsequently contracted me to say that unfortunately she had arranged to leave at a specific time but she will be back.
I would agree, however, that we did not get the full presentation and that questions and comments were 'robust' to say the least. But I'm fairly new to this area meeting stuff...

In reply to colin struthers:


Aren't they already the governing body for competition climbing? That's been their role for decades so what's wrong with writing that into official documents?



Is this something competition climbers want? I think the impetus for that needs to come from them. No one else's view really has any validity.

In reply to colin struthers:

I'd like to pick you up on a few points.


I've read the review. Competition climbing isn't given huge prominence, it's a small part of the structure


It would be fairer to say that a particular demographic of the membership saw the governance of competition climbing as part of the role of the BMC whereas another saw it as not a priority.


I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this survey.


Actually 71% participate in indoor climbing, more than mountaineering. When asked about main activity rock climbing scored highest (37%) with mountaineering and indoor climbing broadly similar (14% and 13%).


The level of participation in elite competition climbing would obviously be low but plenty of people who go to indoor walls participate in informal competitions organised by indoor wall owners and a lot of these are young people. My local wall has a competition on Friday and there'll be plenty of active climbers there enjoying themselves. I agree that this would probably still be at the bottom of the list but it is unfair to dismiss this as an insignificant part of the culture of climbing.


You have misrepresented the results in your post.


It certainly didn't in your post.


I have been a member of the BMC for 35 years, climbing has changed a great deal in that time. The BMC could become irrelevant to the participants in the various activities if it doesn't move with the times. Maybe you don't want that, which is fair enough. There'll be a democratic vote on this next year and you can have your say.

The crux of the matter seems to be that the BMC wants to recognise indoor climbing as an important activity. It is an important activity to many members so I don't see what's wrong with that, most members won't define themselves as indoor climbers only but it's still a big part of their participation. Competition climbing is part of that, and I don't see what's wrong with the BMC being involved in that as well. It's always going to be a small part of its role, I can't see how it'll have a detrimental impact on the other important roles.

In reply to stp:


As per the other thread, and as per previous threads, a lot of thought was put into this in the second half of 2016, and the agreed way forward was the "whilloy owned subsidiary" model, the movement towards whic was put on hold pending the overall review.
That is the most recent stance of the Comp committee.

In reply to john arran:

I'm pleased that you have decided to stop giving your time to 'reasoned' responses. Clearly the task of advancing a sensible counter argument rather than a stream of idiotic abuse would have been well beyond your pitiful intellectual ability.

Please review my original post on the subject of the organisational review before you accuse me of being out of synch with the views of the wider BMC membership.

33 likes to 5 dislikes.

Glad that, as you promise, you won't be posting on this thread again

Adios

In reply to stp:

Interesting idea - the opinions of all the other BMC members who are not actually competition climbers have 'no validity'

Did you really mean to say that?

In reply to galpinos:


Good, and your view is as valid is anyone else's.

Presumably then you are also happy for those who do not share your view to be allowed to express their opinion in a vote of the whole membership of the BMC on this issue?

In reply to colin struthers:

Just read the survey results. The BMC ignore them at their peril

In reply to colin struthers et al:
I think it should be remembered that climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering are informal activities (anyone can walk into the mountains and basically do wtf they like) that require little structural support - hence representative body.

Indoor climbing (which has liability) and especially competition climbing (which has rules) require more structure to support them - hence governing body.

What this means is that indoor and competition climbing will take up a greater proportion of things like organisation structure and m&aa than their actual importance, since they need to be formalised. The other less formal activities will be served by objectives and policies.

Just trying to point out that I would expect indoor and competitions climbing to be over-prominent in all this formal stuff.

In reply to NickR:


Really? then why is it one of the 6 key objectives set out on the first page of the report's summary document?


No, it would be fairer to say what the report actually says - which is precisely as I have described it - please look at the chart included in the report again



You're right, at least in part, if we look at the stats for 'main activity' 37% listed rock climbing, 33% hill walking, 14% mountaineering and 13% indoor climbing. Which still leaves indoor climbing at the bottom of the scale. As a matter of interest, where do you think competition climbing would have featured if it had been included in the survey? I think you probably know, it would have scarcely registered as a main activity at all


How!!!? I have only quoted the report as it is written.


Agreed. I have never disputed that.

Competition climbing is part of that

Insofar as competition climbing occurs indoors that is true, at least for a small minority of indoor climbers.

But indoor climbing is an integral part of the training regime of many traditional and sport climbers and has an obvious relationship to the wider sport.

However, competition climbing is qualitatively quite different to mainstream climbing. It has winners and losers, prizes, rules, regulations, sponsorship, commercialisation, media attention etc, etc.

For many climbers this is very much at odds with the ethos of the sport that we love. In my opinion competition climbing is not something that the majority of BMC members would want their representative organisation to embrace with such enthusiasm.

As I have previously acknowledged, I could of course be completely wrong about this.

So why can't we all agree to resolve the matter by directly asking the entire membership what they want the BMC's relationship to competition climbing to be? Possibly in terms of the question that I previously posed on this thread, or possibly with another wording that we can all agree.

But preferably without the ignorant response to my original suggestion of just 'fu*k off'

In reply to colin struthers:

At 00:50 23/11/2017 the score to your original post was 16 likes, 15 dislikes. You seem to be quite poor at your numbers. Maybe we should suspect any further numerical input from you and check the facts for ourselves. I have checked your numerical inputs and so far you are playing a game of lies, damn lies and statistics!

In reply to wbo:


I would like the policies that the BMC adopts for the future to accurately reflect what the members of the BMC want. And as far as the question of the BMC's relationship to competition climbing goes I would have thought that obliges us to directly ask that question of the whole membership.

I think that's how democracy is supposed to work in a grass roots organisation and I'm amazed at the degree of hostility that such an obviously reasonable proposal has elicited.

Goodness me, its almost as if those with a vested interest in competition climbing are desperately afraid of what ordinary members of the BMC might have to say on the subject.

In reply to johncook:

Read my post, I was referring to the original thread concerning the organisational review. And if you think anything I have said amounts to a lie then please explain where and how I have lied, rather than simply spouting tendentious abuse.

In reply to colin struthers:

Apologies if my view has been parroted millions of times before, but misrepresentation aside, I don't think the BMC should take competition climbing under its wing because it has anything to do with what most of us get up to, but because I'm worried we might have a potential situation one day where the "view of the climbing community" might be sought (by govt, funding bodies, newspapers) from the Competition Climbing Council instead of the BMC.

Competition climbing is potentially going to become very prominent via the Olympics; we shouldn't let that take away any influence and representation, however minor, we hillwalkers and rock/ice/mixed climbers have at the moment through the BMC. There could well be plenty of people who, when they hear the word "climbing" immediately envision leaping for a bell at the top of an artificial wall instead of what most climbers actually do (and to be fair, "most climbers" could well be indoor-only at some point).

It's right that resources and energy are expended proportionally to benefit all the different people being represented by the BMC, and our views should be taken into account, but also we should be smart about it and look ahead.

In reply to colin struthers:

Yes I did mean to say that.

What validity does the opinion of a hill walker have about competition climbing? They probably know as much about it as someone who follows football. The people who know what's best and what's needed most for competition climbing is surely the competition climbers themselves.

How seriously would you take the opinions of comp climbers on what the BMC should do about hillwalking?

In reply to stp:

By the same logic we would need a UK referendum to decide whether or not to kick Scotland out of the Union, because people in the SE must surely know best about the interests of those north of the border, even though whether Scotland is part of the UK or not would probably not have an enormous effect on the lives of those in the SE.

In reply to john arran:

Not a good comparison. Though it seems as though the Spanish government likes to think along those lines...

In reply to colin struthers:


In democratic terms you'd be asking a large and mostly ignorant majority to opine on something that they know very little about. One of the biggest dangers of democratic processes is that they can fail to protect minorities from majority views.

According to Ian's post above the most recent view of the Comp committee is that they favour "the wholly owned subsidiary model". All points of view are most definitely not equal here. In a case like this we simply have to trust that those actively engaged in comps know what's best. Asking the entire membership seems profoundly dumb. How on earth could soliciting the views of hillwalkers produce a better decision about competition climbing?

In reply to stp:


Alternatively, why would asking competition climbers produce a better outcome for walkers? You seem to be agreeing that there is no common ground here, in which case a split makes sense. This shouldn't be a contentious matter - we have what are now entirely distinct activities in one organisation for historic reasons. Continuing with this forced fit doesn't make sense and will lead to further tensions. I think the review is flawed in recommending this.

In reply to MG:


You ask walkers what is the better outcome for walkers. Similarly for all of the other disciplines. Then you balance the requirements of all member groups in as harmonious a way as possible. It's hard to believe this isn't obvious to everyone.

Also, comps and walking are only seen as "entirely distinct activities" if you choose to ignore the unbroken continuum between the two. Splitting these two activities at any point in the intervening continuum would inevitably cause some climbers to see parts of what they perceive as the same activity split into different bodies. To me, that would need a justification beyond anything I've yet seen or heard. It would, however, permit a relatively small number of people to act upon their own prejudices in discriminating against those who may have either wider or more specialist interests within the world of climbing and mountaineering.

In reply to john arran:

If you are going to have one organisation, that is indeed the obvious way to do things but if, as seems to be the case, there is essentially no overlap between competition climbing and walking, let along mountaineering, having these groups in one organisation doesn't make sense (why not add in badminton, kayaking and caving - all activities where there is as much, if not more, common ground?).


I don't see why this keeps getting portrayed as discrimination and prejudice. I have nothing against competition climbing but it's just not something related (I see no continuum, really) to my interests of walking, mountaineering and some rock climbing, so I don't want my representative body split in its focus, and quite possibly being dominated by concerns over rules, drug tests, and medals in the future. Similarly, I wouldn't want the BMC to set up a "subsidiary" dealing with caving even though you could argue that both activities use rock and ropes so there is a "continuum".

In reply to john arran:


+1

I'm mostly a sport climber these days, but I occasionally do indoor bouldering comps and I occasionally go hillwalking.

In reply to MG:


You seem to be ignoring the very important point about a continuum. Yes, there may well be people who play badminton and go kayaking, but I doubt you'll find any that regard the two as being aspects of the same activity. Yet, even using your extremes example, there will certainly be families who may do a kids' comp one day and then walk up Tryfan the next, without thinking what they are doing are unrelated activities. Splitting the BMC at any point in the middle would inevitably divide disciplines that many climbers believe are virtually the same thing. A great many comp climbers will be out on crags or boulders much of the time when they aren't competing; they'll be using largely the same techniques, benefitting from largely the same training, and showing the same determination to succeed on objectives that are by and large very comparable. If you don't see a continuum at that point, dare I suggest you aren't looking very hard?

In reply to john arran:

Well if you and a majority really see things that way, then fine. But I think a straight vote as proposed above might be worthwhile - I suspect you are in a minority. Also talking about getting on in a "harmonious way", is not very convincing when you tell those you disagree with you to "just f*ck off" when they raise concerns.

In reply to MG:


From the clear majority of opinion on here it certainly seems that way. There is a lot of anti-comps noise but it almost all seems to come from a very small number of people.


That comment may not have been my most diplomatic moment, but you need to understand that I, along with many others on here, had already addressed his concerns repeatedly in many tediously repetitive threads. My contention would be that any disharmony originated when the usual process of open discussion is abused by those who repeatedly ignore the outcome of those discussions and continue to peddle division in the hope that others, who may not have had the benefit of the earlier discussions, may be taken in by it.

In reply to

Hi

If you're interested, we filmed the launch of the report at Kendal, and that's now live:

youtube.com/watch?v=zIasTcd345M&

Alex.

In reply to john arran:


I think you are being disingenuous here, John. As you point out we've had this debate ad nauseum and it is NOT about being anti competition climbing. It is about finding the optimum governance of competition climbing and of continuing to represent (not govern) the interests of all outdoor climbers (in its broadest sense).

You also claim this is a minority of people (which it might be in the exalted circles you keep) but from what I see the majority are at best a) hillwalkers and b) ambivalent.

In reply to colin struthers:
Don't forget, that there were about 50 hours of focus groups too that fed into the decision making process, and the ORG were tasking with pulling all the information from these, and the survey together. This has been justified in the full text of the ORG report.

I'd draw your attention to page 10 of the member survey report. Amongst individual members, Rock Climbing and Hillwalking have roughly the same participation as the *main* activity. Indoor climbing has the same participation as mountaineering by the same *main* activity comparison. To say that it isn't a overlapping activity for the majority of members, or that we don't have the mandate to say that the BMC should support all members, in those activities is incorrect. You were (I think), ironically, at the Depot yesterday, you'll have seen some of the influence the BMC has had in the wall there. The BMC being involved in indoor climbing, and comps, is nothing new.

Let's not simply conflate indoor climbing and competitive activities also. The reason competitive activities, has been recommended as a sub group, or subsidiary, is to separate the finances, including potential UK sport funding (separate from Sport England), and in the case of an wholly owned subsidiary de-risk the BMC to a certain extent, and allow it to enter into it's own separate contracts.

The BMC has had a history of supporting/creating "spin offs", which, when listening to the focus groups, want a more cohesive partnership. This recommendations broadly aim to ensure that happens, and to ensure a degree of autonomy for those subsidiaries, existing and new, with effective governance oversight.

On the other thread, you demanded a vote for all members. Quite right. This entire process will be scrutinised by the members. There was a productive and constructive meeting in the peak last night where the recommendations went through the "member test". Don't forget, anything that changes with the articles has to be voted in at a 75% approval, by all those attending an AGM by proxy or in person. Every single member will have the opportunity to vote on that. Every member will have the opportunity to formally feedback throughout this process, multiple times. Not everyone will vote, not everyone will get involved, but we want as many people to do so as possible. Democracy by its nature is self selecting.

In the region of 10000 hours of volunteer time has gone into this, in 6 months, on top of day jobs. None of us at the ORG want members to think we haven't listened, and we all want to make sure that the BMC can be fit for the future. I would not be involved if we weren't doing this process, and members, justice. If recommendations need to change off the back of clear feedback, in order to satisfy the majority they will, but those arguments, for members to be on board, will need to be clear, reasoned and constructive.

See you at the Depot again soon, let's chat, then you can feedback further.

In reply to john arran:

If you set up the BMC today you would not get the BMC as it currently stands. The Council was set up predominately to represent the clubs; and the clubs were the dominant force within the activity.

The activity has diversified. The clubs have lost their predominance. Participation numbers are huge in areas that weren't even considered back in '44. The activity 'climbing' is now a much broader church and the BMC in it's current format is no longer the representative body for the activity as a whole. This review is the opportunity for the membership to decide whether the BMC should step up and once again become that body. Or; should it formally relinquish that position.

Perhaps it is time for a new National Body ( I believe a name is available) who would represent the whole activity.

In reply to colin struthers:


There's a fantastic video posted on here recently celebrating the 50th anniversary of the FA of Moonraker. One of the main things that stood out to me while watching was just how much climbing has completely changed and how quickly. At that time Bivan and Littlejohn could not have imagined what climbing would be like today. Back then there was no such thing as training, no such thing as indoor walls. Yet today climbing in this country is primarily an indoor activity.

It must have been an amazing adventure for Bivan and Littlejohn to make the FA of a great route on a new 250' high crag with rudimentary gear back then. But that kind of thing simply cannot happen today. Wave after wave of succeeding generations of climbers have explored and exploited almost every bit of climbable rock in this country. Today it's not possible for climbers to find new cliffs and put up cutting edge new routes a mere 30 minutes drive from their homes.

Today our newest crags are made of plywood and our new routes are created by professional routesetters. This culture of indoor climbing is how most people start climbing today. Many climbers don't see indoor climbing merely as training for outdoors. They see it as an end in itself, just like at a certain point people stopped seeing cragging as mere training for mountaineering.

So how do talented young 16 year olds make their mark in climbing today? There are no more undiscovered Berry Heads out there. The answer is through competitions. I can't think of many sub 25 year old top climbers who don't compete these days.

This may well be "at odds with the ethos of the sport that you love" and that's fair enough. But seen though the eyes of the younger generation, introduced into a world of plywood and plastic, their view is going to be very different. It really doesn't matter what you think or say. Climbing's evolution is inevitable. It will evolve within certain parameters from geology to our DNA and none of us can stop that.

Times change. Our outdoor crags were formed over millions of years and are a finite resource that has been pretty much used up by now. Where do we go from here? Well there's lots of rock abroad still but for most that's only an option for a few weeks out the year. For the rest of the time the way forward has to be on man made structures: the only way we can never run out of routes. And because of the temporary nature of indoor routes the lasting prizes aren't so much the tick or the onsight but the winning of competitions.

You can be an old stick in the mud if you want. But if you understand that nothing you do or say will really have any effect you might realise that persisting with such an attitude is ultimately a waste of time and energy.

In reply to Removed User:


Could you explain that to me? It may not be explicit, but I see no reason to doubt its validity. Or are you talking about non-participatory representation, such as that provided by training bodies or the CWA?

In reply to MG:
I really do think a majority of people do see it that way. I've done everything in the last month or 6 weeks from walking - mountaineering - climbing indoors and outdoors to helping run a comp. It's surely a continuum - where do you propose splitting - indoors, outdoors? I find your denial of this deliberately difficult.

I don't see why the BMC should not continue with its current range of activities - it just needs an update of its defined organisation. And as it's going to be a prominent activity, in exposure if not numbers, competition climbing will need to be handled properly. The effect of creating a separate organisation for competitions will be that they, not the BMC, will become the go to organisation for comment and funding, support on indoor climbing, and I think rather quickly a lot of sport climbing outdoors as well. And that I think is not good.

I think the idea of a referendum here a very good idea. What are you going to ask - whether or not to accept the findings? Are you sure the membership has read the document fully, understand the background, implications? If the answer is no, then what - another independent review?

In reply to colin struthers:




I really don't get what your objection to the BMC being the governing body for an olympic sport is at all. There is nothing that stops the BMC continuing to agitate for better access (for example) AND governing indoor comps. The BMC will gain from being a governing body, in terms of lobbying power at Westminster, which would be to the benefit of every climber, what is the downside?.

In reply to colin struthers:

In MHO the root cause of the difficulties that the BMC has faced over the last 18 months is all down to the fact that the BMC have never obtained the real support of the wider membership to its involvement in indoor climbing, competitions and the Olympics, and until it does and seals it by putting it to a member vote at an AGM the difficulties will continue.

In reply to colin struthers:

I have to say, that while I don't really have anything to give to these BMC thread, I find them highly entertaining (in a sad way, I might add) while bored at work.

My only interaction with BMC was the Winter Meet a few years back.


That said, this separation of competion climbing (and indoor climbing) from walking, mountaineering, winter climbing and rock climbing is a really odd thing. As if there is one "discipline" that stands out... well it ain't competion climbing.

Moutaineering is *climbing* in the mountains.
Winter *climbing* is well, climbing in the winter
Rock *climbing* is... guess what climbing on rock
Indoor climbing is... *climbing* indoors
Competition *climbing* is yet again climbing in competion (often indoors, but there are and have been outdoors comps, like Mello Blocco).
Walking... see, no climbing anywhere...

So here's my outsiders view...

BTW. where I live, *all climbing* is 'governed' by one entitedy... from safety, equipping cliffs, safety notes, access, youth, development of crags to comps. No walking though...

In reply to Michael Hood:


A compelling argument for having the two separate

In reply to GrahamD:


I disagree. I think there is a prejudice against indoor climbing. Colin articulated this above when he said that it's "very much at odds with the ethos of the sport".

If the BMC is to split between different activities then why is it always competition climbing that is targetted? Why not split off hillwalking or mountaineering instead? It's just prejudice.

Ultimately such lines will be personal. For me, with a dodgy knee, hillwalking and mountaineering will never be something I'm involved with. I see competition climbing much closer to what I do, which is mostly sport climbing. But I can at least admit that's just me. I'm not trying to foist my preferences on everyone else. The varied activities under 'climbing' will take a greater or lesser prominence for everyone.

In reply to john arran:

Don't assume that the UKC and UKB forum contributors are necessarily representative of the wider BMC membership.

Have you read the member survey results?

In reply to Stravaig:
Where in the member survey is it made clear that a majority of climbers think the BMC is representing two fundamentally different and non-overlapping groups of people, and therefore would better be split?

Edit: Don't assume that a climber who doesn't list a particular discipline among their personal activities is in favour of those activities no longer being represented by the BMC. Many people are clever enough to see how a split would most likely reduce the effectiveness of the BMC to represent the interests of outdoor climbers, certainly at the level of government and other national bodies.

In reply to HeMa:
You are missing the point. The BMC has, for some considerable time, represented those disciplines. Competition climbing is new. Competition climbing is different and IMO so different that a separate body would be better for both competition climbers and traditional BMC Members. If you are going to lump it all together as climbing perhaps the BMC could also represent window cleaners, they do after all climb.

You are also conflating representing with governing and that's the point climbing has NOT been governed and I suspect most non competition climbers do not want it to be.

Competition climbers need a radically different type of representation than those who climb outdoors.
Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Actually I'm not missing the point...


What I'm missing is why something that is clearly climbing shouldn't be part of the BMC... after all, there is already something represented that has nothign to do with climbing.


Oh, isn't there another option to represent hillwakers and walkers (Ramblers?).

As for terms governing and representing. I used it with hyphens ( ' ), since I'm not that handy with english language. As has been mentioned in this thread (and others). Some disciplines needs representing in order to, say make it possible to continue to practice said disipline (so negotiate crag access, or push to local commun to build a bridge over that big stream on a popular hiking path). And some (like comps, training and safety) need and actual governing body.

In reply to HeMa:

Of course you are missing the point. You seem to be expecting the long standing BMC and it's traditional role to change to accommodate competition climbing. It's worked reasonably well for many years but all of a sudden things are apparently not up to scratch, but to many off us it appears to be not up to scratch in the context of competitions and proposed changes.

I'm not anti-competition climbing, it just holds no interest for me. It is the antithesis of the hobby I took up. That's my opinion, you won't change it, but totally accept that I may be wrong about one or two organisations.

It could be settled very easily as others have suggested. Ask the membership if they would prefer a single body or two separate bodies.

I would abide by that but at the moment I feel as though we are being "steam-rollered" and distracted by the two sides emotional arguments, neither side changing it's view.

Al

In reply to stp:


Assuming that they had actually paid their subs and were members of the BMC (which I suspect an awful lot of competition climbers have not done), then I would allow their opinion to have the same weight as any other voting member of the BMC. It's called democracy.

In reply to colin struthers:


... whoosh! ...

In reply to stp:


Asking the entire membership seems profoundly dumb. How on earth could soliciting the views of hillwalkers produce a better decision about competition climbing?

Oh dear, surely you appreciate that you cannot applaud the BMC for launching an organisational review that emphasises the importance of consultation and member based decision making on the one hand (as I do) and then in the next breath announce that the opinions of members are only to be considered if you think they are likely to coincide with your own?

In reply to GridNorth:


Ah, resistance to change.. novel...


BTW. I do hope you frown on peoply using those fangled kermantel ropes instead of tried and true hemp.

Adn then they seem to be using those devils creations called swamibelts some even have gone as far as usign 'the horror' harnesses....

In reply to colin struthers:
Some points and a few questions from reading your comments and from attending the Peak area meeting last night (~110 present) .

I'm glad the need to update the MAA in principle isn't getting much negativity (other than a few ignorant folk complaining on other threads about the (unchanged) - language style of these, when we are dealing with company law and real legal risks to directors: what language style do they expect?). I see this particular compliance change as necessary, but its not sufficient: improved legal compliance in articles and best practice in governance codes is the norm these days in organisations and you could argue major governance problems are as common as ever. The directors need to believe in them and be held to account. On the risk side Ed Douglas and others pointed out we seem to have a dilution of input of volunteers elected into the top of the proposed structure. On the plus side (for me... some will worry about the plebescite mob) how those volunteers arise as potential candidates will be more transparent and voting at AGM and informing Area meeting have proposed electronic input.

John Horscroft made a vital point about volunteer support. We need a return to some clearer (paid staff) assistance for this, especially to those new in roles, since most work for the BMC is done on a voluntary basis (including this review!) and leaving key volunteers unsupported is both inefficient opperationally for the BMC and will discourage others making future operations harder.

I worry a little that the Public Good aspects of the BMC are again getting a bit overlooked in the internet and area meeting arguments (they headline the report). We don't just do our work on access, conservation and safety for BMC members, its for everyone. I understand that a move to charitable status for the BMC would be difficult for many reasons but much of the work (ouside the charitable sub-divisions under BMC like the Mountain Heritage Trust and the Land Management Trust) is public good charitable style work.

I remember when Ken was attending Peak area meetings and also the occasional spats involving Bob P or Ivan on Olympic matters: it is possible for big characters or passionate single issue types to try to dominate meetings and this needs careful chairing. You are right the material Ray and Rab presented was complex and so it seems to me its only fair to let them present first, as disrupting such presentations makes retaining a challenging line of thought much harder. Are you really sure no one was put off in the NW area meeting or too nervous to put the supportive counter-view on the BMC involvement in competitions? If you think no one was intimidated, are you sure those with the counter view haven't given up on your area meeting? I ask this as in my experience the majority of activists support the BMC involvement with comps, you may think otherwise but you can't deny it's a sizeable minority at least. I also see a sizable minority against. It would be very worrying indeed if only one side of such an emotive argument spoke at any particular local area meeting.

More than 70% of BMC members in the survey say they climb indoors and competion climbers in that group may be much larger than you might think, as many of us enter fun comps. I'm pretty sure its similar in its minority as say those who ice climb, for instance, and the BMC has many much smaller sub genres than that. I think we are all stronger together. The review took evidence from many focus groups as well as from the survey. From that overview they were clear that competition climbing was mainly supported, despite the BMC 30 being one of those focus groups (and acknowledged input to certain recommendations from discussions with that group). I see no logical reason to disbelieve the honesty of that overview (and a sad return to some of the private distribtion of MoNC related conspiracy theories in some of those who do...eg in recent letters from some of the '30' distrubuted in the Alpine Club but not yet to my knowledge available anywhere in public). In any case, the membership will decide at the AGM(s) with opportunities to contribute via a new survey and at January Area Meetings and via motions to and from the floor of the AGM.

If arguments are there to be made they should be public and I trust the membership, and will go along with what they democratically choose to do.

In reply to GridNorth:




HeMa is not missing the point.
The BMC has represented climbers / mountaineers for 70 years, and organised competitions and looked after the team for 24 years at least (Leeds 89 was the first international comp in the UK)., so for well over 1/3 of its existence. And in its early years, I wonder how much it represented other than the clubs forming it? So for a significant part of its existence, competition climbing has been part of the BMC.
Competition climbers do not need governing. They need representing and organising. There is a lot too much of the word governing being used here. The representation they need is different, but only in terms of the specifics of the competitions; I cant think of any of the GB Climbing Team who are >16 years old who do not climb outdoors, usually to a very high standard.
Window cleaners very very rarely climb; H&S rules mean they almost exclusively use pumps and long handled brushes, or cherry pickers.

In reply to stp:


One person's opinion. Mine is different. I'm not anti any activity even if I choose not to participate in that activity. I do watch competition highlights now and again and it is impressive stuff. I climb indoors much more frequently than outdoors these days. The reason to look at competition climbing as opposed to, say, hill walking is that it requires a completely different form of governance. Outdoor activities from Sport, Bouldering, Hill Walking, Winter, Trad, Scrambling ALL have the preservation of access and conservation (but not governance) as a common denominator.

So I can only speak personally in saying that I am not anti competition - although its not for me (I'm not good enough or competitive enough to do it)

In reply to stp:



I'm afraid you have summarised exactly the fear that many of us have. Lets say for a minute I'm a hillwalker who has paid into the BMC for all of his walking career. You are suggesting that my views are ignored. I know what I would be doing with my subscription next time round.

Al

In reply to Andy Hardy:


My objection is pretty straightforward really. I think that the majority of ordinary BMC members, if specifically asked whether they want the BMC to be the governing body for competition climbing or if they would prefer competition climbers to have their own independent governing body would opt for the latter. Of course I could be quite wrong about that, and that is why I favour putting the question to a vote of the entire membership.

I think I've already made that point numerous times so perhaps you could address it, rather than pretending not to understand it.

PS, I think I'm correct in saying that across a variety of sports there are numerous examples of the competitive and recreational aspects of the sport having separate governing and representative bodies. And that in some other European countries this separation already exist in respect of climbing. So the possibility that this might be the best solution for climbing in the UK is scarcely the outlandish, left field suggestion that some people on this thread are making it out to be. ( I don't have chapter and verse on the situation in all other sports and countries so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

In reply to colin struthers:


Your suspicion is so wrong.
All members of the GB team / development squad have to be members of the BMC.
The vast majority of entrants to the BLCC / BSCC / BBC are members (you'd be daft not to, the discount on entry fees covers the cost.....)
The YCS, the largest BMC participatory event, has approx 55% of the participants as members, and this is for people between the ages of 7 and 17.

In reply to colin struthers:

It might need stating that the status of competition climbing within the BMC is actually a very minor part of the recommendations overall. And, in essence, the review group is actually recommending 'no change'! It is the proposition that the BMC should cease to be involved in competition that is revolutionary.

In reply to Ian W:

But the debate is about it becoming a Governing body, is it not? That's a different organisation than a representative body with different pressures and values. Anyway this is all becoming a little tedious, no one seems to be having a change of view and we are just going round and round repeating. With regard to window cleaners I was just trying to make a point for gods sake.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

You seem to be making the same mistake that Colin was making higher upthread.

A democratic process is all well and good as long as the electorate are sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues concerned so as to have a valuable opinion. This is why we tend to have representative democracies, as it's easier to form trust in a person or party based on the major things they stand for, and to then let them get on with it, than it is to learn sufficient detail about every policy to be voted on in parliament.

Asking hillwalkers for an opinion on the best way to represent the interests of competition climbers, or indeed comp climbers on the interests of hillwalkers, would generally be a pointless exercise, as few are likely to have the information or the interest to offer valuable opinions.

So what we should be doing, and I believe are doing, is asking each user group about how best to support their own interests, and then having a democratic process in place above that to make sure that these interests are well taken into account nationally in a balanced and responsible way.

In reply to colin struthers:


We understand that, but every time you bring it up, you ignore the roundly negative feedback on that viewpoint. Every climber I know wouldn't agree with you and from the comments here, it would suggest you are in a minority. You are ignoring that.

In reply to colin struthers:

I haven't had much to do with the previous threads on this subject, so I'm afraid I have missed the numerous times you've pointed out the obvious downside of the BMC being a governing body, so I'll re-phrase my question: What makes you think that the majority of members would object to the BMC being the governing body for UK competition climbing? Gut instinct? Chatting to your mates? Facebook?

For the record I climb outdoors, indoors and have even entered the leading ladder at my local wall. I would imagine that makes me a typical BMC member - climbing wise - I don't limit myself to one branch exclusively - and I doubt many other people will either.

In reply to john arran:
I have sympathy for that view but it seems to me to be a good argument for a separate body. If I pay money to an organisation I'm damned if I will be excluded from having a say how that money is spent because someone else thinks I'm not intelligent enough to do so. I strongly believe that outdoors climbers and walkers are best represented by the BMC and competition climbers would be better served by a separate body.

In some ways that is what you would have to do. You would end up fire-walling funds to keep everyone on board effectively creating 2 organisations.


Al

In reply to GridNorth:


No, Al. The debate is about the BMC CEASING to be the governing body for competition climbing (and ski mountaineering competition as well if anyone is interested?).
And I fear that this desire for a change is obscuring all the other changes that are actually included in the Review recommendations!

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I climb pretty regularly indoors and outside, trad and sport, in the UK and abroad and it might surprise you to know that I have also entered informal climbing comps in the past (once won two new quick draws for coming second in the duffers class I think!).

But like everyone, else my impressions of what other climbers think about a variety of issues are necessarily limited to the climbers with whom I come into contact. And I have accepted that my opinion that the majority of BMC members would prefer competition climbing to have a separate governing body could be wrong.

That's why I think the question ought to be put to a vote.

So now can I ask you as question?

Why would anyone who themselves wanted, and who genuinely thought that the majority of other climbers also wanted, the BMC to be the the governing body for competition climbing have a problem with a vote on the issue?

I rather suspect we all know the answer to that.

In reply to GridNorth:


It is nothing at all to do with becoming a governing body. The BMC is already the de facto NGB or competition climbing (recognised as such by the UIAA and IFSC). It is to do with a change in the organisational structure to reflect the legal and practical requirements of modern organisations, and setting up governance structures that will make the BMC relevant for the next 10 to 15 years, not just the next 10 to 15 minutes. This forces people to think less about what the current situation is, and more about what it might become.
The window cleaner point was taken as facetious, hence the facetious (and factually correct) reply. You are right in that its going round in circles, but there are a certain group of people, including you, who appear entrenched in their views, with almost no facts or evidence to support their position, and a clear fear and paranoia of change. And I agree, as I have posted in other threads, that it is tedious.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I can only speak for myself, but for me it is the motivation and aims of competition (and I would in fact include all indoor climbing) are completely different to all other sorts of mountaineering. Competitions are about being "best", gymnastic ability, competition, rules etc. Nothing wrong with that but it is entirely different to being outside where it is about enjoyment, exploration, self-reliance, personal challenge and so on. Combing these two things doesn't make sense to me, any more than combining hillwalking and fell-running would for the same reasons.

In reply to Ian W:

Is it not? I thought that was the first line in the summary report but it's that long since I read it I may be mistaken.

Does anyone deny that formalising or further incorporating or however you care to put it, competition climbing into the articles of the BMC will result in further complication, an increase in bureaucracy and costs and inevitably a rise in contribution costs for members?

The argument falls into two camps those in favour of a separate organisation and those against. The consequences if it goes ahead are simple, a fall off in membership of the former and an increase in the latter. The first is measurable the second is an unknown and IMO possibly a little optimistic.

Al

In reply to Offwidth:


Personally, I'd expect legalise language in the full report, and user-friendly language in the summary. The latter expectation wasn't met, it took a lot of hard thinking to (hopefully) work out what they were trying to tell me!

I agree with everything else you've said though!

In reply to john arran:

This sounds just like the comments made about Brexit voters; not enough knowledge. Do not assume a possible majority are ill informed because they do not agree with you.
The only true democratic process is a vote from the membership and if a majority of the BMC demographic does not agree with you, tough!
All the current problems have arisen from the executive applying autonomous decision making, only involving the membership retrospectively. And it seems they may continue to do so.
I have been working with Rehan Siddiqui all summer and we have discussed the latest travails at some length. He claims that up to 80% of the current updating proposals for the BMC were actually previously proposed by him and yet it was him who resigned.

In reply to john arran:


I have zero interest in competition climbing, and these days I do more hill walking/running than even rock climbing. But I also have zero reason to object to the BMC representing competition climbers - why would I? I'm assuming that they don't lose interest in their traditional core activities, but I've seen no sign that this might happen.

Particularly if as suggested the competition body is a wholly owned subsidiary, I can't see any membership vote on the subject doing anything other than supporting the BMC's continued involvement.

In reply to colin struthers:

[...]




Fixed the question and I would have no objection to a vote, although I think the case would have to be made for the alternative to the status quo - which brings us back to my original question :What is the benefit of having a seperate governing body? or the demerits of the BMC continuing as a governing body?

In reply to MG:

Have you actually competed in a climbing competition before? Even one of the fun local ones?

I used to regularly attend the competitions at the Climbing Station in Loughborough when I was at uni. I had no illusions about being the best, or even better than my mates, personally I went along because I'd have a good laugh with my mates, occasionally meet new people and I would push myself further than I normally would because I had no idea how hard the problems were going to be, personally that sounds like it's ticking some of the boxes which climbing outside ticks for me. Only reason I don't anymore is that I moved away and my new local wall has them on friday evenings when I'm usually driving somewhere for the weekend.

In reply to GridNorth:


Could we all please stop this misrepresentation of opinion. I said nothing about intelligence and for you to infer that I did is disturbing. Just because many competition climbers may be unlikely to have sufficient interest in fell walking to justify the time and effort needed to research the finer points of that discipline sufficiently to form valuable opinions, doesn't mean that they wouldn't be intelligent enough to do so if they so choose.

And before you use that again to reinforce your existing opinions, I'm not suggesting that each discipline should be self-directed (and therefore might as well be in separate organisations), I'm suggesting that each discipline should be responsible for its own representation to BMC central management, where people with a genuinely good overview of the whole organisation can make better-educated judgements as to how to balance the support to all of the individual disciplines and programmes.

You don't ask people in Cornwall how best to run Scotland.

In reply to GridNorth:

I thought that was indoor climbers rather than competitors.........


I dont see the need for this; but if it is included in the M&A, it still doesnt prevent a different body taking over as NGB at some point in the future.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Unfortunately I think the BMC will follow the money and this will inevitably lead to a shift in emphasis. I saw a similar thing happen with climbing magazines. They went from trying to inform and educate ordinary climbers to becoming mouthpieces for commercial organisations and creating a cult of celebrity and elitism along the way. (Yes I know they were always like that to some extent)Bouldering and competitions photos started to dominate the format because these were easier and cheaper to acquire but for me the magazines became less attractive to buy as they did not meet my requirements. I stopped buying and long before digital media.

Al

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

You’re quite right. The full report, by its nature needs to be technical.

The designers did an incredible job putting that together, from 40k+ words, nearly 4 times longer than their original brief, in literally 48 hours before it went to print, and then working with us to split it into 3 docs. It’s certainly not perfect in losing the management speak, but we’ll try and get the information across simply. Ask us questions and challenge the thinking, come to the meetings if you can. The ORG is volunteers, but in reality it’s often been at least as many hours as a full time job! We’re trying to work with you, not against!

In reply to john arran:

Quite right, apologies. I should have said qualified.

My greatest concern is the reply to Simon Caldwell, a fear that the BMC will follow the money. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my fears may be misplaced and I will continue to support the BMC until such time that I see that shift happening.

As I and others keep saying we can see very little commonality between climbing as we know it and competitions. On the other hand I can accept that it is perhaps just evolution. The main point is that if I perceive a shift toward competitions at the expense of the BMC's traditional values I will stop supporting it. It really is as simple as that.

Al

In reply to colin struthers:


This is true, but it still isn't a high level of dissatisfaction. Just 10% fairly or very dissatisfied. And it isn't clear whether the 10% are dissatisfied with the BMC's performance in this regard, or just don't think the BMC should be supporting competitions at all, however well they might do it.


True, as far as I can see, as well. But 71% of BMC members do participate in indoor climbing, though mostly not as their main activity. I put rock climbing as my main activity because it's the most important for me, but I probably spend as many if not more hours indoor climbing taken over a year, and I wouldn't get as much satisfaction out of my outdoor climbing if I didn't have the opportunity to get fit and stay fit indoors.


True again I think. But I think this is a very complicated question. You have to look at the long term consequences of splitting the BMC, not just at the short term desirability of having the BMC focussed entirely on its traditional interests. Would a new governing body be just for competitions, or include all indoor climbing (as many have suggested above)? And if all indoor climbing, why not all sport climbing? Am I alone in thinking that sport climbing has as much in common with indoor climbing as it does with trad climbing? The boundaries could be blurred and long argued over, and much of the money, and ultimately the clout, could well pass to the new body. Over time, a more narrowly focussed "rump BMC" would be less well-funded, less influential and potentially less able to represent the aspects of mountaineering that a majority (an aging majority) of the membership currently hold dearest.

I see some uncanny comparisons with the Brexit debate. I'm a joiner - not a splitter - on both.

Martin

In reply to john arran:


This is the thinking behind the proposed make-up of the new National Council/Members Assembly

In reply to Ian W:


An interesting point which also came up at the NW area meeting. It was accepted that at some future point the memoranda and articles could be changed but I don't think a formal mechanism and timescale for their revision or amendment was proposed. A figure of 3 years was mentioned by somebody in the course of the discussion.

But that doesn't really address the issue does it?

If it was actually the case that most BMC members wanted competition climbers to have a separate governing body now, then is this actually a persuasive argument?

'Go on, just approve the organisational review in full, if there's something you really don't agree with included, don't worry, you can maybe change it in three years time'

In reply to whoever: we do all seem to be looking at this rather internally. I think the critical point is how the outside world will perceive our activities.

What happens to access when a separate competition governing body gets all the government funding? Etc. There's no way that funding can be used towards other common good objectives (by helping fund more support staff for example). But if the overall umbrella organisation gets funding then it can do this.

The idea of having a totally owned subsidiary seems the obvious way to go. Is having totally separate bodies the way it would be done in business. I don't think so. Large companies don't tend to split until they've got beyond economies of scale issues unless there is a real need to concentrate on core activities. I don't think that's the case here.

Keeping comp climbing in the BMC will increase its status especially as we get towards 2020. That means more influence on the non-comp things we care about.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Good point, I would take it even further. What happens when the government funding comes into conflict with some conservation or access issue?

Al

In reply to Michael Hood:

The thinking behind the owned subsidiary idea seems to be an acknowledgement of the fact that competition climbing is related to but different from mainstream climbing both in nature (rules, prizes, winners, losers, governance) and in the likely funding streams that it might tap into (UK Sport, commercial sponsorship, ticket sales, event advertising etc).

But then so is mountain training, (i.e. related to recreational climbing but different), but nobody has proposed that it should be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the BMC, ditto UK Mountain Rescue. And I don't hear the Association of British Climbing Walls asking to be brought within the BMC's governance. So how come all these organisations responsible for activities that are different to but related to recreational climbing can manage to function amicably and effectively alongside the BMC. And why should we suppose that an Independent Governing body for competition climbing couldn't do likewise?

And a wholly owned subsidiary is, to borrow your business analogy, often also a means for companies to deflect criticism by creating the appearance of independence and separation of activities where none actually exists or is intended.

The subsidiary idea won't change the fact that the World will see the BMC as the governing body and the promoter of competition climbing.

The media focus on the BMC would in future be far more likely to be on the competitions, their winners and the medals they achieve than on the excellent but less 'newsworthy' work the organisation does around access, environment, insurance, safety, and around speaking for climbers etc, etc. Even though everyone on this thread has assured us that that the latter would still constitute the core of the organisation and by far the largest part of the work that it does. So if that's true, why would we want our representative body to be misrepresented and/or misunderstood in this way?

In reply to colin struthers:


So finally we're treated to an insight into your real concern. Would you prefer if the media were to go to a different, competition-focused, body for fair representation of the broad scope and ethos of all things climbing? Or are you under the illusion that the general media is clever and sensitive enough to recognise the subtleties of partial representation within the same sport?

In reply to colin struthers:

You wouldnt even need to change the M&A. New NGB set up, recognised by IFSC and UIAA (hence IOC), and hence UK govt. All that you would have is the BMC having something in the M&A that isnt needed. Doesnt make the BMC then any less good at its remaining stuff. Its a really minor point in amongst the important stuff.

If a majority of BMC members want a split, then it becomes compelling in one way (will of the people etc), but not compelling in another. By getting NOW what they think they want NOW, the "people" will actually be getting something they wont actually want in the future.

This has been thought out long and hard by several of us within comps, and its a balancing act (as always). We've looked at a variety of possible outcomes, and looked at other experiences overseas, and come to the conclusion that for the near future at least, its best to "stick together".

In reply to Ian W:


Great argument but equally valid when viewed from the opposite perspective.

Al

In reply to colin struthers:



I've deleted a couple of paragraphs, and am left with the above. It summarises the situation perfectly.

In reply to Flashy:



I don't usually weigh in on these debates but I thought the above from Flashy was a very interesting point. It strikes me that this has the ring of truth. If you divided Competition Climbing from the BMC into its own representative body, I would have imagined that this would be the body that would attract more investment, sponsorship and attention as a result of the Olympics, and potentially also capture the attention and loyalty of the younger generations of climbers. This would risk the separated BMC (that the other members wanted) becoming moribund, with lack of new membership from the younger generation.

My personal view is that the BMC seems to be doing all the right things - they have sought insight from their membership, they have consulted third party experts - and on the basis of this they are proposing an evidence-based reconstitution.

I for one feel that it will be a better, more influential, better funded and more broadly representative body if it keeps competition climbing under its wing (albeit perhaps spunout into a sub-company).

Personally I would have said that my 'main activity' is rock climbing, though through location and lifestyle I spend probably at least 80% of my climbing time indoor climbing. I've done a bit of comp climbing but don't enjoy it (too crowded!) or watch it very much but it seems very important to younger climbers and I'm excited by the inclusion in the Olympics (although I think the Olympic format is weird). I think it could be a great opportunity to get better knowledge on training for climbing, injury treatment and better indoor climbing facilities, and to create a generation of British climbers who go on to push standards and achieve great things on the rock.

Although I see the BMC's main value as protecting access and acting as advocates for the climbing/mountaineering community re: the mountain/crag environment, I think it would be a shame (and a massive missed opportunity) if it couldn't encompass comp climbing too.

In reply to GridNorth:

Dont see how; i dont ice climb / dry tool. I think dry tooling is the most pointless exercise invented, but I know people who enjoy it. I can see it as a branch of climbing, and therefore accept why it should be under the climbing umbrella, currently the BMC. Why cant those climbers who don't like comps think it should fall under the same umbrella? All aspects of climbing bring something to the party. All take something from the party.
Just go climbing in whatever form, ffs, and stop worrying what other people do!
Al, last sentence not aimed exclusively at you. But i can feel a rant coming on, so need to contact JoshOvki to subcontract it out, or go for a lie down.

In reply to RockSteady:


This comment, I like. I am not aware of many comp climbers, if any, who would deviate from that view. The BMC's number 1 core activity is Access / Conservation.

In reply to GridNorth:


If that does happen then I'd oppose it as well. But I don't think it's likely - a significant proportion of the membership are hill walkers, if they change direction then they'll lose not just the subs from those members, but also the associated income that is based on the organisation's size.

In reply to Ian W:

I thought that I had described the reasoning that led to my opinion and I pay my dues to the BMC, so I don't see why I should accept anything. Why can't those who do like comps accept that it could be better off with it's own organisation rather than trying to change an existing organisation especially when it is hard to deny that there is a great deal of opposition. Bringing to and taking from the party is my point. Other than ascending a vertical face using ropes and harnesses, it is my considerable experience that I do not have anything else in common with the competition/exclusively indoor climbers I meet which is also part of my point.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:



Which government funding is this????? We are clearly missing out on something........

In reply to GridNorth:


It could be, but currently I doubt it. Also there is a possibility the BMC could be, but I also doubt that. There is so little analysis / evidence pointing to an improved situation for either comps / the team / remainder BMC being better off, and so much suggesting it is better to stay together, carried out by me, the comp comm as a whole, Exec, National council, that it is frustrating when others assume their hunch is better.
Compexit here we come?

In reply to Ian W:

I was quoting somebody else, I meant to just say funding. There is funding from external bodies isn't there? There will be more when climbing enters the Olympics won't there? Concentrate on the conflict of interests that was more the point of my argument.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


I'd say because they're all outdoor climbers too so don't see any advantage in tearing their unified representative body in two. Wouldn't you agree?

In reply to GridNorth:



Ah-ha!. That comment you quoted was someone trying to query what would happen when one govt funded body came up against another, without realising that Sport England / UK Sport is not govt funding (but i can see why someone would think that).
Yes, there may be funding / sponsorship available commercially, but I'm not sure that the structure of the comps / teams will influence that.
Not sure i understand what you mean by conflicts of interest - it may have got lost in a myriad of posts over > 1 thread........

In reply to john arran:

If that is your experience I can see your point of view. It's not mine but that's probably because I do not mix in those circles. My wall is full of climbers who are interested in comps and superstars, have no knowledge or desire to climb outdoors, know nothing and care even less about the traditions, history of climbing, access and the mountain environment and would baulk at the thought of having to walk anywhere and expose themselves to the elements. The thoughts of handing over control to the likes of them concerns me.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Out of curiosity. Can you give an example of conflict of interest between comp climbers (who all also climb outside) and outdoor climbers (of at least a portion also climb indoors).

In reply to GridNorth:

There is funding from external bodies isn't there? There will be more when climbing enters the Olympics won't there?

The answer is not necessarily, final public decisions have not been made nationally or internationally. Only one funding offer has apparently been made and that is to an individual, no others have been made as far as I know and there are no guarantees that any will be made. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that British climbers will be selected for the Olympics, the field is planned to be small, at one time figures of 20 men 20 women were being mooted, though this may have changed. There is no obligation to accept entries from every national Olympic Federation in the world and it may well be that other nationalities have better (in the 3 disciplines) climbers than GB. The Olympic issue is, in some ways, an irrelevancy as it may not even happen that GB climbers compete, though there are at least 3 who are aiming to be there and, at the moment it is within the BMC's remit to support them and others. As posted elsewhere on this site 'The BMC has represented climbers/mountaineers for 70 years, and organised competitions and looked after the team for 24 years at least (Leeds 89 was the first international comp in the UK), so for well over 1/3 of its existence'. The UIAA, of which the BMC is an important and influential member has been supporting climbing in the Olympics since at least 2005 when Alan Blackshaw and before him Ian McNaught-Davis were Presidents of the UIAA. Inconvenient facts to some but facts nontheless.

In reply to GridNorth:

Right so it boils down to "I don't like these people they are not like me so they should go away".

Could have saved a lot of reading if you had just got to the point sooner.

I find this whole thing flabbergasting tbh, indoors or outdoors, or in competitions they are still climbers, frankly if I'd met some of you lot in my early days on indoor walls I'd have probably never ventured outdoors, it's not a friendly outlook.

D.

In reply to HeMa:

The conflicts I was referring to were funding related. I'm not sure a conflict exists yet between indoor and outdoor climbers but I can see the day arriving when there will be pressure to hold a competition outdoors in the UK, watch the feathers fly then. With regard to climbers see my response to John Arran.

Re-reading all of this I can see that I am perhaps being a little pessimistic and, making judgements from my small limited experience of this new environment. Thinking about it coldly, I don't know if I care enough about it. I'm 69, my climbing future is limited and I'm arguing my case from the point of view of this might happen, that might happen, this is how it's been etc.

So looking at this from a selfish point of view bring it on. Bolt all the crags so I can repeat the glories of my youth. Just kidding

Ignoring all of this I do however think that competition climbing might be better served by a dedicated organisation. Why should the people I meet at my wall want to join an organisation full of people like me

Al

In reply to davelodwig:

So I present reasoned PERSONAL OPINIONS with the latest one showing a slight softening in my attitude and this is your only response. Idiot, just as your cause was beginning to make ground. You do know that this is merely a forum for friendly debate don't you.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Actually, the BMC has been working less and less well for some time (I'm not saying that it's crap - far from it - but it's become increasingly creaky). Things have come to a head for several reasons, and now the degree of change required is considerable. Ideally the process of review would be iterative: that's why the ORG have recommended that the M&AA are reviewed every 3 years in future.

The needs and expectations of the membership have changed - both since the BMC was founded in 1942 and since the M&AA were last reviewed in the early 1990s. The world around us has also changed: the legal requirements, levels of participation in the different types of climbing, the demographic and outlook of the people doing it, and the way that the world looks to the BMC.

That mismatch needs sorting out, otherwise the BMC will become both increasingly irrelevant and also too risky an organisation for anyone to consider volunteering to carry any degree of (increasing and personal) responsibility and liability.

In reply to GridNorth:

I last had to post this two days ago, in a still-live thread. Comps are held outdoors, but on artificial structures (which I assume you have no problems with). I take it you mean outdoor comps as in on natural rock. If not, then I've misunderstood you, but if you do mean that, then please refer to the other thread. It is against the IFSC constitution to hold comps on natural rock, and the BMC wouldn't support it. Neither would the "British Federation of Sport Climbing" or whatever. Apart from the logistical difficulties it would present, it just isn't what we want to see. Red Bull shamefully organised a dry tooling event on the white cliffs a few years back, and i for one was disappointed that the bmc didnt denounce it more strongly, and disappointed that some fairly well known climbers supported it. Climbing comps on natural rock are not something you are likely to see anytime soon,
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/red-bull-white-cliffs-2015-the-results

In reply to colin struthers:


Straw man. You've deliberately misinterpreted what I've said to suit yourself. I don't take a view on how best competition climbing should be organized in this country. What I've said is simply that the best thing to do is ask those involved with competition climbing. I'm sure they'll know best. Such a change will effect them and no one else. It's nothing to do with hillwalkers. If comp climbers want to set up an independent organization separate from the BMC I'm happy to go with that and I think they should be supported. Likewise if they think their interests are best served directly under the BMC I'll support that too. I'm not in a position to judge and most importantly I won't be affected the change. I think that's all anyone outside comps can really say with any integrity.

Gaining the views of people who are anti competition climbing for their views on the matter is a bit like asking xenophobes for their view on Brexit. We did that already and in retrospect we can see that was a really stupid idea.

In reply to davelodwig:

You do not know me, kindly keep your paraphrasing and insults to yourself. If you are flabbergasted stop reading. Rest assured I wouldn't have taken someone like you outdoors.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

So in one post I'm an idiot and in another I should keep my views to myself.

Righto, sums the whole thing up for me.

Your not like us, we wouldnt teach you what we know you don't know anything.

You can use as many flowery words as you like but that is the underlying tone.

I'm sorry but if those of us that came before don't bridge the divide how are the youngsters, the indoor climbers, the comp climbers suposed to know the traditions, the joy of rock, etc. Or is it only for those deemed worthy.

The BMC has a choice, one of which is to be left behind. The other is to be involved in the broadining of the sport.

In reply to GridNorth:



Haha. Sounds like me when I was 17. Youth, huh?

In reply to GridNorth:


That's really not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are certain topics that don't concern all groups. I don't think hillwalkers views should be ignored on anything to do with hillwalking. But people who want to chime in about stuff they know little about and/or are not affected by are generally known as busybodies.

The simplistic argument that everyone should have a vote on everything is both naive and worrying. Democracy has come a long way since ancient Greece.

In reply to davelodwig:

FFS why don't you just shut up when your cause may be winning me over. Just because I've voiced concerns and yes some valid objections doesn't mean that I cannot acknowledge that there is perhaps a case to be made for comps staying with the BMC. Playing "Devils advocate" at times can help one to clarify things. Instead you resort to personal insults and yes I responded in kind, it's human reflex. Persuade me don't mock. I'll apologise if you will

Al

In reply to S11:

Your maths is poor 2017-1999 = 28 years

And it was at the start of Mac's Presidency that the UIAA got IOC recognition (1993).

In reply to john arran:

OK, point taken.

Al

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry Graeme, I bow to your superior knowledge, I'm a pictures and words guy, numbers have never been my strong point.

Ian

In reply to GridNorth:

There has already been comps outside in the UK, a boulder comp at Crookrise and something in a quarry in the Lakes and there was nearly one at Malham.

But if you think that there could be a proper comp on rock in the Uk then you are wrong. Totally wrong, all the rock has been climbed so where would this theoretical comp be held? How would you ensure that the routes/boulders were the right grade? And not too reachy? The beauty of it is that comps on rock do not work.

In reply to stp:

OK but if I make contributions to an organisation I expect to have a say in it's objectives so if in that context you are talking about walkers only having a say on walking and comp climbers only having a say on comps then you are effectively creating two organisations and would have to ring fence the contributions wouldn't you? i.e. more bureaucracy and expense.

Al

In reply to colin struthers:


Colin, as I have pointed out on another thread there is a process in place for YOU to do that. On you go....

In reply to Andy Say:


Indeed, you are right.

I would like to have an conversation with others who broadly share my views re the BMC's relationship to competition climbing. And I would then like to agree a motion and supporting argument that could be presented to the forthcoming AGM. So if that's of interest please email me through my profile.

Thanks

Colin

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Blimey Graeme. You're older than you look. The Burnley Boulder Bash, chipping hell out of Lakes slate to create Saturday TV coverage (actually scheduled in Radio Times I believe and promoted by Brendon Foster?) and a comp up Yosemite Wall. It was the Parish Council that put the kybosh on that one wasn't it?

In reply to Andy Say:


Not always, depends upon the time of day!


I think it was the Malham thing that was promoted by Brendon Foster & scheduled on the Beeb. But what do you expect from a NUFC fan, Steve Cram would never stoop so low

In reply to colin struthers:

BMC and competition climbing:

Better to be in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

Ignoring competition climbing will not make it go away.

Climbing walls are used for "real" climbers' training, for people who only want to climb indoors (loads at bouldering walls these days) and potentially a few for competitions.

The BMC deliberately excluding competitions may reduce any influence the BMC may have on "real" climbers' training facilities. If only a small number of climbers entering the sport through competitions make the transition to being good sport or trad climbers than that would be good.

There's no reason why the BMC's potential support of competitions should diminish support for other key areas including access for climbers and hill walkers and helping to perpetuate the unique ethics and ethos of British trad climbing.

Climbing is changing (as it always has done), restricting the BMC's remit cannot reduce this change.

I would prefer to see the BMC embracing all aspects of the sport. if not could we even see the spectre of a separate competition body organising an event at your favourite crag, draped in Red Bull banners?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I recall the planned televised competition being on the manufactured route on Lake District Slate's Black Hole/Cathedral quarry which eventually became "The Cruel Sea"

A competition body outside the BMC may see no reason why something similar shouldn't happen in the future, after all the BMC don't own the crags.....

In reply to stp:
You’ve missed the point a bit. Our young climbers aren’t necessarily disinterested in the idea of adventurous undertakings. I believe that many would be keen. Take Anna Biven for instance. She is a young climber who has reached a level of technical ability and strength possibly far beyond that of Pat at the same age. She has an interest in the adventurous and a love of the outdoors instilled by her parents. She was, through a particular set of circumstances placed in the position where she had the opportunity to climb with Pat and to have what was for her, a fantastic adventurous experience. Anna loved the route and gained a taste for more of this kind of thing. It doesn’t mean that she isn’t keen on going to the wall or entering comps, just that she has now had her eyes opened to another aspect of climbing.

I believe that we need to keep the whole of climbing together. This in my mind includes every aspect from indoor bouldering to big mountains and all of the deviant activities in between. Having, in the last week climbed new routes on the Atlantic coast, been indoor bouldering, done routes inside, enjoyed the girdle of Chair Ladder and have today impressed no one with my pathetic sport climbing ability I can say that the fun is in dipping into all parts of climbing.

If indoor climbing breaks away, then we risk removing opportunities for dipping into many aspects of the sport. This is important. Climbing for me and for many of us has been and will continue to be a life long pursuit with all of the benefits of health, mental wellbeing and amazing friendships that go with it.

For our young climbers we owe them a BMC which enables them the opportunity to start at the wall and through this beginning see a lifelong sport with adventure, friendship, physical and mental wellness and the enjoyment of beautiful environments. Climbing indoors or competing is just as valid as any other aspect of the sport and for some might be a satisfying end. For others such as Anna Biven I can’t help but think that she has seen something special that she will explore further.

What is my rambling point? Simply put, the BMC needs to represent the interests of all users of all our climbing and Mountain environments whether those are inside or out. We need to work together to make sure that the BMC produce a structure and strategic plan to represent us all. That is why it’s so important that we think about young climbers and walkers when giving our feedback about the ORG.

Sorry for verbosity!

James

In reply to kevin stephens:

This won’t happen. There is no sensible reason for holding a comp outdoors. This argument is a total white elephant.

James

In reply to james mann:

But there already are numerous comps held annually outdoors. Like the Mello Blocco. And there are others.

In reply to HeMa:

None of them organised by any national federation. If a private individual or organisation wants to organise one, there is nothing the bmc or anyone else can do to stop it. We can just express disapproval.

In reply to HeMa:

Having read the ORG report quite carefully I can find no mention of how the BMC will specifically look after the interests of Italy’s climbers and walkers. I noticed that the B in BMC stood for Britain and then I noticed that you were bending the evidence somewhat.

I would do a smiley face here but am too technologically backward.


James

In reply to colin struthers:


Interesting that without the qualification of the first sentence you might have been describing sport and trad climbing in Sheffield (or any other place with climbing critical mass) 1980 onwards........even in current BMC guidebook pictures, it’s easy to spot who is sponsored by who.
I don’t suppose Andy P is reading BMC threads, but how about an article about trad new routing (winners and losers, prizes, ‘rules’, Geoff Birtles, etc) and sponsorship Back in the day Andy? Should make an entertaining read.

In reply to Ian W:

True, but some are supported by the national federations... Mello Blocco being one.

In reply to james mann:

True, and like I mentioned in my first post... I'm even outsider to BMC.

My point was simply that such comps do exists, are held annually an they are even quite popular.

So it is likely, that something like that could happen in UK as well.

In reply to the doubters:

To those who think the younger generation lack a drive for more adventurous things, compounded by competitions:

I had the pleasure of climbing with one of the junior team this year at one of Caff's youth meets. While she was burning me off on all of Curbar's mean cracks I asked her what her dreams were in climbing. "The north face of the Eiger and a free route on El Cap" was her answer. Whether competition climbing is part of the BMC or not is one question, but there's no question in my mind that I want people like her to want to be a part of it.

In reply to HeMa:


And they shouldn't be.

In reply to Ian W:


Perhaps...


And this might be the reason to keep the Comps under BMC... Because, if Comps are represented or governed by another instance, they could as well support hosting (or even host themselves) a big ass Bouldering Comp in Stanage.

In reply to james mann:

You make some valid points, but I would argue that you are somewhat conflating indoor climbing with competition climbing. Competition climbing is the clear 'odd one out' because it requires rules and governance.

For me the debate isn't about whether different forms of climbing are valid or not. They are clearly all valid and individuals are likely to participate in many different forms.

The debate as I see it is how best to ensure that the very diverse requirements of different disciplines are best served in the future, given that the nature and demands of competition climbing are likely to change and be heavily influenced by the Olympics and, to some extent, the current profile of team GB ladies.

In reply to HeMa:
As I have asked before,who does the BMC represent?
Does it REALLY represent the disparate elements of its membership?

Does it really fight the corner of trad as hard as it fights the sport climbing corner?

If the competition climbers get a disproportionate amount of funding and support,wouldn't that be the tail wagging the dog?

Such a tiny percentage of climbers operate at the Comp level. As I said before on UKC,during the naming debacle,the comp climbers should have their own governing body and funding body.

That way they will not have to compromise their ethos to the BMC. Nor will have their funding tied to how,if,when and where they compete.

To me,funding comps and comp climbers is funding the cuckoo in the nest.

It would be like football,where Division One get all the funding,and newbies spend more time discussing and attending comps,than involving themselves in climbing at the personal level.

Britain has lousy weather for climbing. This gives the perfect background for indoor comps,with attendant razzmatazz ,videos and advertising.Yuck.AS has been shown,many climbers trained indoors get hurt when they try outdoor leading.The trad method is to start climbing outdoors.

BMC funding and encouraging Comp climbing would just increase the numbers of bolts and chipped holds on our crags.
Does the BMC really represent Trad anymore? If so,why all the propaganda that pegs can't be relied on
or recommended as trad tools?What happened to the concept of acceptable risk?

Does the BMC really only worry about the numbers of staff employed,and about how it can justify its own existence to the membership;more than it cares about the concerns of the membership?

I have noticed that at some BMC meetings,known dissenters to the party line are rarely called on or not allowed to speak more than once. Thus my suspicion that trad is no longer a cultural icon at the BMC.

The fact the outdoor clothing companies could sponsor ''rock athletes'' (plastic athletes?) is a worry for me.That would have implied leverage over the BMC,despite denials.

AS many members have commented,the BMC should maintain independence and ONLY fund through member subscriptions.

No doubt some at the BMC would be terrified by the possible shrinkage of the BMC as a result.Is the BMC going to lose integrity by having sponsors?

It already has.

Mitch

In reply to Wil Treasure:

If that's a reply to my post above I think you've misunderstood my points. I certainly didn't mean to suggest there was a lack of drive from younger climbers for adventure. The suggestion is that the availability in the UK is very much reduced from what it used to be.

The reasons for this are:
1. Discovering and exploring new crags is not an option for today's younger climbers because there are no new crags. Everything has been done before and described in detail in our guidebooks.
2. The massive rise in technical standards mean that many of our crags only offer relatively easy climbing.
3. The change and increase in protection mean climbing is generally much safer now.
4. Various other technological revolutions have made the outdoors intrinsically less adventurous (eg. smartphones and satnavs).

Because of these and other changes climbing today is not and cannot be anything like what it was in the sixties. People have a rosy eyed view of those earlier times and the romantic adventures that I can fully appreciate. But we can't go back we can only go forward.

I'll also repeat that my point was specific to the UK and I did mention going abroad as an option. Perhaps the girl you chatted to grasped this. Both of her dreams were in other countries.

In reply to stp:
Scotland is heaving with undeveloped crags. What an individual simply has to do is open their mind to new possibilities at existing crags.
The old cliché that modern technical standards have risen,therefore we need comps and bolts...

Therefore?!

The top of the pyramid is broader,with more people climbing hard boulders and sport routes. The vast majority of climbers,however, still lead trad under E1. Just have a look along Stanage on a busy day. Queues on the vs's not on the E2's and above.

It's a myth that we need new crags developing. An individual,unless in the elite,just needs to try to get better in order to maintain interest at a particular crag.Are BMC fans arguing a consumerist approach to the landscape?

If you are in the elite all you have to do for a new challenge is accept some trad challenges.So in highballing a grit E6,don't use a mat,same as back in the day. Is it a rise in standards if you can't replicate what happened 30 years ago?

The other way for the elite is to push their own standards with new trad routes and highballs. People who do newies don't whinge on about not having enough comps and funding.They go to the crag and apply themselves.Self starters.The BMC is not in any way required to help them to do this.Dawes and I nearly top roped Wuthering big roof 20 years ago.It still hasn't been soloed or top roped.Standards have gone up? Really?Only for the very few.

In reply to stp:

You may generally be right, but your point 1 is not. There's loads of new rock in the UK it's just takes a bit more effort to get to than in previous eras.

In reply to HeMa:




I notice the wink at the bottom; however, there are some who appear deadly serious in their worry that any other body than the BMC might organise a comp on natural rock, so i wish you wouldn't try to inject humour. It simply doesnt appear to work with these people.

In reply to paul mitchell:


All comp climbing in this country has been indoors by necessity. We simply don't have the rock available to create competition routes, even if anyone thought that was a desirable way to go.


Before the mid eighties trad was the only kind of rock climbing anyone practised. Today we have sport, bouldering, competition and indoor climbing too. To represent all parts of the pie equally trad is inevitably now only a part of the larger whole.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Members... ;9


Ah, perhaps you should try moving to HELLsinki. In summer, it's too hot for harder climbing. and falls, springs and winters are a no go... which is why we do have such great gyms ;p.

In reply to stp:

It wasn't aimed at you, just the general notion that young climbers are number driven or competition focussed when the reality is more complicated.

The fact that the adventures were abroad wasn't my point (and they've been done before anyway) it was just that despite a pedigree in competitions, her first thought on ambitions was to do classic adventurous routes. I'd have had the same impression if she'd said she wanted to do Positron or the Axe. You can climb for both a roadside athletic goal and an inconvenient, conditions based adventure.

In reply to Ian W:

It's a valid concern to an extent.

I'm sure BMC would not do this... but some other solely comp focussed one might. Likely, no, but more likely than under BMC governance.

No wink this time, as I'm deadly serious about it. But it's not on me... I'm not a member nor do I live in UK.

So what is needed, is a risk assesment... Pros and Cons and so on... [/enginerd talk]

In reply to HeMa:





To me, having been involved in organising comps for >10 years, its a ridiculous concern. And if you want someone with more experience, at a higher level, try Graeme A.

I can't believe the amount of debate about this. In Scotland the MCofS already started a separate ClimbScotland unit mostly for young people, comp climbing and indoor climbing. It does a lot more social media where MCofS has its paper magazine.

Climb Scotland works pretty well and NOBODY GETS ANGRY ABOUT IT, no angry letters to the editor, no motions of no confidence. The munro baggers and trad climbers have their magazine which has less about comp climbing kids in it than a few years ago. The indoor climbers and kids get the social media about stuff that interests them and don't need to open the paper magazine.

Seems like the BMC is incapable of getting with the times and being as enthusiastic as it needs to be about the fastest growing area of the sport i.e. indoor climbing. All this straw-man paranoia about comp climbers wanting to organise comps on real rock is getting tedious. Some brand like Red Bull might do a so called 'comp' with a few sponsored athletes outdoors, but they are doing that anyway. The IFSC have spent a lot of time and effort in figuring out how to do comps effectively on artificial walls and have f*ck all interest in trad crags. UK crags would be completely useless as venues for an IFSC-style national/international climbing comp.

a. Half the field would practice the routes before the event. There would be a huge local advantage. Even indoors if a comp is held on a feature wall you create a home team advantage.
b. It might well rain and months of planning would be wasted.
c. You are not going to get an audience to sit about on a hillside watching climbing for two days. It's too f*cking cold and midgey and there's no toilets or food. It takes a long time to get a hundred plus entrants up two or three routes.
d. Outdoor routes would be sh*t for comps. Comp routes need to be carefully designed to split the field, be climbed in 6 minutes or less and be exciting to watch. Comps want overhanging walls with big bright volumes and climbers moving quickly, not people taking ages on a vertical wall with tiny crimps and hard to see holds.
e. You're not going to find a crag near enough to a major population centre to attract sufficient ticketed audience, with convenient seating for a few hundred people, food, toilets, a sound system, good lighting so it can be videod and with multiple routes of exactly the right grade for the different comp categories.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Thanks for taking the time to write what I couldn't be bothered at 16.54 yesterday

In reply to paul mitchell:

The BMC represents its members and in its focus you will stuggle to find any evidence that trad climbing gets less emphasis than any other game; the norm is just the opposite in fact.

I notice no such problem with area meetings: one person's view they are being silenced is another's congratulation on good chairing preventing a single voice dominating a meeting. If you mean you have been treated this way, thats a bit silly as the Peak area know your views very well and you have always been allowed to speak once (where getting to speak at all can sometimes be a problem). You can always email the area more complex arguments or, better still, write an essay for the area newsletter (just collect the best themes from some of your posts together and add a few photos of historical or current interest). It seems to me nearly everyone in those meetings admires your enthusiasm, knowledge and experience, and the input you make (despite the odd peg or chalk joke... climbers were always sharp with their humour).

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Everything Tom wrote, x10.

But more emphasis on the IFSC bit. The IFSC specifically EXCLUDE the possibility of comps on natural rock in their constitution.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Not really surprising given that Stanage is probably the most popular beginner crag in the country.

Just look at Raven Tor on a busy day. Queues to get on 8b+.



It's nothing to do with it. It's a change in culture. People don't go round repeating routes from the 50s using engineering nuts, hemp ropes etc.. They climb in the modern way, the same as all their peers.



Erm no. In the 1984 only a couple of climbers could climb 8a. It was the top of the elite level. Today thousands of people can. Today even onsighting 8a won't make the news.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Really? I'd be surprised if only to wonder why no one is climbing there. There must be a reason. Is the rock quality poor, or does it simply not offer anything at a high enough standard perhaps?

I've no doubt there's unclimbed rock in Scotland but for half the country Scotland is as logistically difficult to get to as Europe is. Most are going to choose the latter because of the better rock, the scene and importantly the almost guaranteed dry weather. But that still leaves the question: why aren't the Scots developing it?

In reply to stp:

I'd say Paul is right as he talking average onsight trad standards of those leading Extremes. In my view these have largely stalled since the late 80s, except on ground-up highballs.

In reply to stp:

Plenty of unclimbed rock in Cornwall, some excellent quality stuff at all grades, but I'll not say exactly where just yet!

In reply to stp:


Since when has Scotland not been part of Europe ?

In reply to Offwidth:

I can think of reasons for that. At somewhere around E6 trad routes tend to become more dangerous. Most climbers don't want to climb dangerous routes all the time. At about the same level the number of sport routes available opens up and encompasses the best routes too. So it's natural for climbers to switch somewhere in the mid extremes from trad to sport.

But another trend is the fact that younger climbers can reach the level of the good sport climbing purely from climbing indoors, thus bypassing trad altogether. So for me it's not that standards haven't risen, it's more to do with a cultural shift in what high standard climbers tend to climb. Those gnarly E5s with scant gear that Paul used to put up are just not popular these days - though I'm not sure they ever were when I think about it .

Totally agree about ground up highballs. Again they're now a big part of our climbing culture whereas in the past they were relatively minor.

In reply to Doug:

10/10 for pedantry.

0/10 for common sense.

In reply to stp via Doug: it was still part of the UK last time I looked as well

In reply to colin struthers:

It IS worth noting that the actual question asked in the survey was about 'satisfaction with the performance of the BMC' in supporting and governing competition climbing!

So there are a variety of interpretations ranging from Colin's 'members don't want the BMC involved in Comps' to the interpretation I have also heard that 'members think that the BMC isn't doing enough to support Comps'. And I'm not sure, given the wording of the question whether ANY real conclusion can be drawn. The survey company suggest 'Reactions are more mixed on the performance of the BMC in lobbying and
campaigning, in providing support to encourage participation of young people (aged
under 25), and in supporting and governing competition climbing. In each of these
areas, satisfaction levels are lower and there is also a higher proportion of members
that are actively dissatisfied.'
Of course we aren't privy to the 'essay answers' which might shed some light on how to interpret the responses but I'd think you'd be pushing it to read the result as 'members don't want the BMC involved in lobbying, campaigning, encouraging young people or competitions'. That would just be daft!

In reply to Offwidth:



Excellent idea(s).

Mick

In reply to GridNorth:

I suspect Al that this is all about money.
If you would like to see just how the BMC may change then take a look at British Cycling which changed its name from British Cycling Federation to British Cycling (name sounds familiar!).
British Cycling has and continues to chase the money and only success brings in the money. Once success goes, the money goes also. British Cycling realised that indoor track cycling was where success could be achieved and whilst the track team have obviously been very successful, I suspect that the public now only associate British Cycling with track racing and Sky road teams and do not know that they also administer all road racing, bmx, cyclo cross, cycle speedway and part of time trialing but, with funding being directed to where medals are won, the bulk of the money now goes to the track squad.
The danger is that the BMC has to start chasing funding and the main funds can only come from medals resulting from climbing competitions and that becomes its "raison d'etre".
Personally I have no problem with that as I see that the BMC has become a bit irrelevant to most climbers in the same way that British Cycling has become irrelevant to most cyclists other than for insurance and in the BMCs case access agreements.
That the BMC wants to harvest the money is no surprise and why should they not do it rather than another body but at least they should be honest about it.
Mike

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

But many cyclists have/had nothing to do with what's now British Cycling which I always viewed as for competitive cycling rather than 'recreational' (as in Cyclists' Touring Club ) or commuting/transport (groups such as Spokes). The BMC tries to be mix of all of those, maybe the comparison is more with the canoeists & sailors where one body is both competitive & recreational ?

In reply to colin struthers:

If competition climbing is such a threat (and I've still to be persuaded that it is) then surely its better to keep it within the BMC? An entirely separate body for competition climbing would have no duty, and no remit, to consider the interests of anything other than competitions. The BMC will also have to consider the interests of other aspects of the sport.

In reply to Andy Say:

Let’s not forget that the BMC does already support and represent competition climbing, and it is already the NGB for such purposes. ORG recognised that there was a desire for the BMC to be a broad church within the member survey and the focus groups. There wasn’t an overwhelming desire for the BMC to let competition climbing loose. The dissatisfaction was often with the low levels of support for competition climbers. There were a minority of people who did not want the BMC to represent competition climbing.

The ORG report isn’t just based on the survey, it’s based on a significant number of focus groups too and we were tasked with bringing all this information together to report on a BMC that would be fit for purpose and for the future. Hence we recommended a subsidiary (there are legitimate risks and finance separation considerations etc) or subgroup to continue to do this more effectively, with clarity, some autonomy, and with limited risk to the rest of the BMC.

In reply to Andy Say:

Since you posted this as a reply to me I assume that you think I said that the survey results prove that 'members don't want the BMC involved in lobbying, campaigning, encouraging young people or competitions'

Actually I didn't say anything of the kind!

What I did say was that maybe Rab Carrington was misrepresenting the results of the survey to the NW Area Meeting when he claimed the opposite, namely that the membership wanted the BMC to represent all aspects of climbing and were therefore NOT in favour of competition climbing developing its own separate governing body.

I broadly agree with your analysis of the survey, it is not possible to conclusively determine what the majority of BMC members feel about the role of the BMC in relation to the governance of competition climbing from the survey. Which is hardly surprising as that was not a question that was asked.

And given that this does seem to be your view, can I assume that you agree with me that the particular interpretation that Rab put on the survey results in his opening remarks was incorrect?

And since we both seem to agree that, as yet, we don't really know how the membership feel about the role of the BMC in relation to competition climbing, would you also accept that it might be a good idea to ask them?

PS please do not take this as an exercise in Rab bashing, I happen to like him (possibly this isn't mutual any more!), I respect him as a climber and during the short time I attended National Exec meetings I thought he was an exceptional Chair. But I hope you will allow that I am entitled to disagree with his view on this subject.

In reply to colin struthers:


No, Colin. It was a response to the thread as a whole. But I'm pretty sure that you said that the survey showed that BMC members were unhappy with involvement in competitions? It was noisy. I may have misheard

In reply to JR:


Just how do you get that from the survey results? Members said that they were unhappy with the BMC's performance in supporting competition climbing.

In reply to stp:


A revealing comment. IIRC 62% of Scots not only understand that Scotland is part of Europe but voted for Scotland to remain in the EU.

Martin

In reply to Andy Say:


I don't think I could have said that, as at the time of the meeting the survey results were not available and I hadn't even seen them.

But I had seen the survey questions and so I did point out that the conclusion that members were against competition climbing having a separate governing body could not possibly have been based on any of the questions that were actually asked

In reply to stp:







Dear stp

I thought I'd check your logbook. I couldn't see a single trad route in the last year or so. Have you ever done any? I think you'd find there's plenty of adventure out there today if you look for it.

Martin

Edited to add a PS: I've nothing against sport climbing (unless people suggest retro-bolting my favourite trad crags). Indeed I enjoy doing it, though not at your standard and usually in trad mode - ie ground up, on sight, no falls (if I can help it). It's just that I don't generally go sport climbing for "adventure".

In reply to Doug:

In my ham fisted way, having been a member of the BMC, BCU and BCF I was trying to say that, as soon as money and Olympic medals comes into the equation, the focus of an organisation changes. This may not be a bad thing as the focus of any organisation is likely to change over a period and maybe all of the old farts, me included, have to understand that the younger generation have a different agenda but then the BMC have to understand that they,potentially, stand to loose a large proportion of their membership.

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:


What about a comparison with something like the RYA, who represent a wide range of boating activities/users/clubs etc. They seem keen on Olympic medals but I can't see disgruntled members objecting to this online. Membership's a bit more though.

In reply to colin struthers:

It's great to see such vigorous debate on the reorganisation of the BMC.

I would encourage people to read the report https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Report%20Summary.pdf
themselves.

Hopefully the language of the report doesn't get in the way. The recommendations, the supporting reasoning and their implications are worth careful consideration.

In particular it's worth understanding if the proposed Assembly structures will improve the BMC's representation of its membership and allow better balancing of the interests of the different communities.

Personally I think that this thread's focus on competition climbing is a bit narrow.

Note the proposal to reduce the votes of the Local Areas from two to one. The justification is that "This will allow for partners and Specialist Committees to be involved in the voting process on a regular basis for the first time. "

This appears to me to weaken the policy oversight of the current 'grass roots' structure. What is the overall split of voting rights between local areas and the partners / specialist committees? Wouldn't it be more representative if the local areas maintained a majority of votes?

Anyone from the ORG care to comment?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I'm a member of the RYA and I think they do a good job in representing a wide range of interests, from folk in dinghies on an inland reservoir to people racing across an ocean and everything in between.

I'm also a keen cyclist of which there are two national organisations, CyclingUK and British Cycling. I think it would be better if there were just one representing and promoting all forms of cycling.

I don't think it would be good to have separate organisations for competitive and non-competitive climbing.

I support the review recommendations as this will make the BMC even better.

In reply to petecallaghan:





Amen! Thank you for a focussed post!

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:


Perhaps they're not saying that it's all about the money, because it's not all about the money?

From what I've read, heard, and seen of BMC officials and members, money for money's sake isn't on the list of priorities at all. Money for specific projects is, but then it's the project that's the aim, not the money. But perhaps you have a different experience of the BMC?

As for the reorganisation, as far as I can see, one of the main drivers is legality. The BMC currently does not comply with the law - not the law of some random funding body, but the law of the UK. Therefore, it cannot legally just continue as is. It's a fortunate side effect that complying with the law should make the BMC more acceptable to bodies that will fund the work it wants to do.

The other main driver is to address admitted failings in representing the whole of the membership. The BMC (in area meetings, NC and committees, which is all I've seen of its workings) seems to have been making sincere efforts to act on the views of the members as it sees them. But with 80000 members, the current mechanism captures the views of only a relatively small proportion, such as those able and willing to go to area meetings or AGMs. This, too, means that if the BMC wants to do more for its members it has to change its structure.

So it seems to me that the BMC saying it's all about the money might satisfy some people's deepest suspicions but would actually be less honest and less accurate.

In reply to petecallaghan:



I'm not on the ORG, but have been an observer from a specialist committee for some time. Some thoughts on your points:

- The area reps mostly present the views coming from the area meetings. Having two of them allows for the possibility of them cancelling each other out by voting different ways on an issue - you may or may not think this is a good thing! If they both vote the same way, the second rep is effectively redundant. If you really wanted, you could achieve the same effect by giving each rep two votes.

- The fact that area reps derive their views from area meetings means that only people who can come to area meetings (or take the trouble to write in) get represented.

- I think this is why the proposal is to add four grassroots BMC members, unaffiliated with areas. This makes up for about the third (I think) of the numbers removed by cutting area reps to one each. NC is a huge body as it is; it would get even more unwieldy if you added these grassroots members without cutting numbers elsewhere.

- I think it's slightly unfair to imply that the specialist committees aren't representative BMC members! They might have an area of specialist knowledge (and I think it's actually important to capture this knowledge, more than has been done to date) but they are *unpaid* volunteers and by and large just as keen climbers/walkers as anyone else.

In reply to kamala:

This is the problem though, it's not been as open and transparent as it might have been and suspicions were first aroused with the unwarranted attempt to change the name. To many this seemed like part of a plot to surreptitiously change the charter of the BMC solely to accommodate competition climbing. Possibly because it was identified that a large part of the membership would object. The more cynical might even say precisely because of this. I also get the feeling that any short comings in governance may be to do with competition climbing rather than the traditional role of the BMC.

I don't of course have any evidence for any of this, it's merely my sense of events as an ordinary member, which is of course part of the problem and why we are where are today.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:



You are completely and absolutely wrong on both counts. The name change was an attempt to better define what the BMC stood for, given the changing world of climbing. Yes it included indoor climbing, but not so much the GB team themselves, who already had a unique identity.The governance shortcomings had nothing to do with comps at all. Absolutely nothing at all. It was / is because the structure of decision making at the BMC put it, and the directors of it, at odds with company law.
I am at a loss as to how many times I and several others have to reiterate this before you and others either believe it or come up with a shred of evidence to support your view.

In reply to Ian W:

I'll take you at your word but I'm describing my perception and, I might add, not mine alone.

Even so you have to admit, it's not the BMC's finest hour is it?

Al

In reply to Ian W:


Given part of the change is growth of competition and indoor climbing, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In reply to Martin Hore:


The only thing revealed to me is that you're being deliberately obtuse, unable or unwilling to use common sense. If you want get really pedantic then England and Wales are part of Europe too! But when climbers in the UK talk of going climbing in Europe they're not talking about going to Stanage or Gogarth or even Glen Coe.

In reply to MG:


Excellent point. I wish I had thought of that

Al

In reply to colin struthers:

One of the major issues around Recommendation 5 is at the moment I cannot see any reason why someone who only climbs indoors would want to join the BMC and I cannot see how the BMC could materially change this. This is actually a very similar situation to affiliated club members and the solution could be a similar approach - putting a BMC levy onto their climbing wall registration fee. Interestingly the affiliated club member’s levy raises about £326,000 and if you added the registered climbing wall members with the affiliated club members you’d get nearly a million members so the levy could be reduced to as low as 33p per member, plus a bit for the increased admin. This is a lot lower than the current affiliated club member’s levy of £13.25.

In reply to GridNorth:

Its been building for quite a while. The reorg was first mooted in mid 2016, due to the incompatibility of the M&A and Co Law. I think the name change really crystallized the need to change; it was voted for very enthusiastically by the area reps (18 for, 1 abstain, 0 against), but the reaction of the members showed that the structure of NC area reps deciding on policy, and Exec implementing it was no longer tenable.
Fully accept you are by no means alone in your perception - is this perhaps a reaction to many members being "on the fringes" and happy that the bMC look after access, organise some events etc, and dont get too involved being suddenly drawn into various high profile happenings and not really recognising /what the BMC does as a whole? This isnt a dig at you or anybody else; I have found myself in a similar situation with a different organisation.

No, not the finest hour; disappointing that it has been left for so long before taking such positive action; but I've long been critical that the BMC always seem to be reacting to events rather than taking the lead (in the comps section anyway)........

heres hoping that the org review not only makes the BMC relevant to todays climbing community, but also allows the BMC to be relevant for another 10- 15 years minimum, and allows them to paln for the next change before it gets forced on them .

In reply to GridNorth:



One thing that doesn't help is that a good conspiracy theory is often a lot more interesting and attractive than a picture of slightly incompetent good-will - we see this in all sorts of ways nowadays!

Definitely communications haven't kept up with the growth in membership though attempts have been made. Most members, I think, get general email newsletters while material like National Council minutes are up on the website. How many people read those? They'd be a lot more informed if they did that, but the many comments on here saying they can't be bothered to read the ORG reports suggest that plenty of people probably don't keep tabs on NC - or even their own areas. Anyway, this is one of those drivers of the current suggestions for change!

I've found it really instructive being an observer on NC. It's plain to see the genuine interest in doing the best for our activities - and also the complete willingness to speak up against anything that looks remotely like a faceless corporate line! The people there are far from a uniform lot of money-grubbers, and I think that if more people went to these meetings there might be fewer cynics about money as the main driver. Of course it's impractical for 80000 members to be at each meeting so I think the re-organisation has been a sincere effort to design something that lets more people feel they have a say. I wonder whether it might be worth some change such as allowing random members to request to observe occasional NC (or MA as it might be) meetings? In the meantime, keep reading those minutes...

Of course you have no reason to take my word for it, but I went into the NC meeting where the name change was discussed thinking that I really like the old name and I didn't want it messing with. Having heard the thinking behind the proposed change I came out feeling that I could at least see where they were coming from - ironically the inclusion of hill-walking was one main theme, and I don't even remember competition climbing being emphasised! - and that perhaps I ought to allow for more modern feelings than mine. If I had had a vote I still don't know which way I'd have cast it. The decision on secrecy seemed to be born of "commercial" (poor choice of word but can't think of the right one) paranoia and was of course in hindsight a very serious mistake.

The trouble seems to be that some people feel that nothing less than an undoing of history will suffice - they reject all the explanations of how the wrong choice was made, they reject all the additional information being supplied, they reject all the promises to do better in future, they refuse to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And of course the BMC can't undo history, so with these people they can't possibly win. I think, if the organisation spoke with a single dictatorial voice, there could be justification in this stance. But there are a multitude of voices, from paid staff, to elected officers, to random unpaid volunteers, all declaring variations on the theme that competition isn't the tail that wags the dog, and to refuse to believe *all* of these various voices is, I feel, carrying cynicism too far.

As the (now ex-) chair of a specialist committee (Equity, if you were wondering - and yes, I know some people think of that as unnecessary PC rubbish), I have seen some of what Sport England money went on, and I think it's no secret that the bulk of it had nothing to do with competitions but more to do with supporting grassroots participation. Those details are probably in NC minutes somewhere, most likely in among the annual reports of the committees.

In reply to Stravaig:


The ORG suggests the solution of being flexible to alter membership types and working through affiliated organisations:

P39

As the BMC looks to attract younger members, particularly from indoor climbing, it will need to consider how it can partner with organisations such as ABC, ABCTT and MTUK to create relevant membership packages that are tailored,
financially accessible, and perhaps non-voting in nature. These memberships need to have high relevance to potential new climbers and the partner organisation

In reply to MG:

Dont see how I am; Im referring to comp climbing here as the remit of the comp comm; ie looking after the GB team, and organising BMC comps in the uk (British Champs, youth opens (feeders into squad / team and national champs), youth climbing series (regional, entry level comp for 7 - 17 year olds).
There is little we can do to influence the myriad comps at climbing walls; they are run by various private commercial organisations.
For me, the role of the BMC wrt indoor climbers is to be the go-to organisation for those transitioning to natural rock / crags. Its possibly correct to say that the BMC is not appealing to purely indoor climbers, but it should appeal to that part of the indoor only community that will transition to outdoor climbing.
In any case, if comps do get a higher profile, why should that threaten the other activities? access, land management, huts and the other activities wont be diminished; they will have just as much prominence, and I think its indisputable that access and conservation will always be the number one core activity of the BMC.
Hope thats clear; its been typed quickly!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



So how do you think the BMC can do this?

In reply to Stravaig:

Alex has some ideas...

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


Alex who? Would he like to share them?

We are being asked to sign up to some challenging proposals (to say the least) but no one is saying how they might be achieved. I appreciate it is early in the process are there is still 5 months to the AGM. But I will certainly want to know what the recommendations will mean in practice once all the jargon has been stripped away.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Yes I've done lots of trad though not in recent years. For me the adventurous side of climbing is more like big multipitch routes in remote locations with no one else around. I'm not saying one can't find adventure in many of our crags, though the increasing number of participants I think makes it rarer. Also if you go to the same crags again and again the increased familiarity also reduces adventure.

But I was specifically talking about elite level climbers, as Biven and Littlejohn were in their day. Today it's very hard to find anything equivalent to the first ascent of Moonraker because it's all been done before and if it hasn't it's probably too easy to be significant or too hard to be possible. A lot of today's cutting edge 'trad' routes, if one can even call them that, involve extensive top rope practice first, which to me is the antithesis of adventure. This is nobody's fault though. It's the inevitable outcome of the progression of the sport.

Elite level climbers are significant not because they're better than everyone else. It's because they're the ones who set trends in climbing. Sport climbing and bouldering, the two biggest departures from traditional climbing in the UK, were introduced by elite climbers. Now almost everyone is doing them.

The biggest trend I can see amongst top level climbers today is the increasing amount of time spent indoor climbing. Indoor climbing isn't simply training any more and it's not something you only do when the weather is bad. It's become it's own thing for many climbers, equal to other forms of climbing. Indoor walls have improved massively over the years and continue to do so. Meanwhile our outdoor crags remain exactly the same.

In reply to Stravaig:




Alex Messenger, Head of Marketing & Communications at the BMC.

Like I say there are ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that they will work but unless you experiment and try new things you never know if they will work. That's how innovation works. Experiment, see results, doesn't work, try something different. I would love it if the BMC had a more innovative culture which means being open to experimentation and more accepting of failure.

In reply to stp:


There have been high quality new routes at up to E5 or possibly E6 climbed on-sight on newly developed crags in Cornwall in the last two years...

In reply to petecallaghan:




I agree that this discussion needs to be about more than competition climbing.

And the point I think that you are making about the need to preserve 'grass roots' control in any future structure is obviously important.

The review proposes to replace the current structure of a an Executive working alongside, and generally assumed to be answerable to the National Council (which is dominated by member representatives from the Areas), with a new Members Assembly and a new Board of Directors who are nominated rather than elected.

So what? you might ask, same old same old isn't it?

Well no, because the very first page of the review makes it abundantly clear that 'the BMC Board of Directors must have primacy'

The authors of the report will object that it provides for the Members Assembly to have some (as yet unspecified) 'reserve powers' - I think this means powers over certain matters where members will have the final say. But in a genuinely member led organisation, which I think is what we have always assumed the BMC to be, isn't this the wrong way round? Shouldn't the default structure assume that members will always have the final say except in the case of reserve powers that might reasonably be granted to the Board of Directors (i.e. so that Board members could not be obliged to implement proposals from the membership that might put them on the wrong side of the law or that might threaten the financial security of the BMC).

So what I think we have, when all the committee speak and legalese is stripped away from the report, is an attempt to shift power within the BMC away from the membership and to, in effect, diminish it's role as a grass roots organisation.

And whilst I do agree with you that we should talk about the review in broader terms than just the future relationship to competition climbing, I also think that the issues are connected.

For example, if the BMC wishes to be recognised as the National Governing Body for competition climbing as the report intends, then it must satisfy the Sports Council's Recognition Policy which states that an approved organisation

"Regulates and controls members through rules
Owns, develops and manages rules and practices for the sport"

The application criteria for National Governing Body Status stipulates that

"Where a sporting activity presents a risk of injury, the NGB should demonstrate is has taken measures to minimise and control risk to participants"

And UK Sport and Sport England's 'Code for good governance' describes the preferred NGB structure in the following terms

"1. Structure
Organisations shall have a clear and appropriate governance structure,
led by a Board which is collectively responsible for the long-term success of the organisation and exclusively vested with the power to lead it. The Board shall be properly constituted, and shall operate effectively."

So I think we can see where the need for the 'primacy' of the new nominated Board of Directors comes from.

A lot of people on this thread seem to have assumed that those opposed to the BMC acting as the National Governing Body for competition climbing are against the very existence of competition climbing. That is certainly not true in my case. Nor am I opposed to indoor climbing and the BMC's role in supporting it - at this time of year I'm indoors myself two or three times a week.

But what I do not support is the BMC continuing to be a 'National Governing Body'.

Have another look at some of the published criteria that I have quoted here - are you really happy that these sit comfortably within a representative body for climbing, mountaineering and hill walking?

You better be. Because if the AGM agrees to incorporate NGB status into the memoranda and articles of the BMC they aren't going to be changing any time soon!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


Members will be asked to vote at the next AGM, though, on a structure that depends upon it working.

In reply to Ian W:


'the structure of NC area reps deciding on policy, without the ability to refer the matter to their area meetings' might be fairer?

In reply to Ian W: I think I'd like to disagree with you on what the BMC can offer indoor climbers. It's true that you can't and perhaps don't want to control all the local comps. But you could rather easily implement something like the Norwegian Brattkort system, whereby having passed an authorized exam you are now certified as a safe belayer. Does the BMC offer route setting courses, lots of other things?.

These activities , as well as being very useful can be quite nice income generators

In reply to colin struthers:























Some very convincing arguments here

In reply to colin struthers:
No they're opinions. They're also a lot of what iffery. ANd here is the fundamental point. You say you are not happy with the BMC to CONTINUING to be a governing body (and note my emphasis on CONTINUING), and want it to be a representative body. So you have another governing body? The BMC will provide input to them.?

Be careful what you wish for . And be aware you can't reset the clock to 1980 or whenever. There has just been one process to come up with a future 'plan'. You want another? Are you going to keep asking for them till you get the answer you want?

In reply to wbo:


Mountain Training currently has an 'Assistant Instructor' course in design stage. Might be similar?

In reply to Andy Say:


Chicken and egg isn't it. If given a mandate, encouragement and resources we can apply our best efforts to attract more indoor climbers. For indoor climbers I would prefer to substitute younger climbers (who typically start off indoors) as the young are the real target. Then you need to define what you mean by working. What numbers? What membership price?

When I went round the Area meetings earlier in the year to discuss whether to embark on commercial partnerships things weren't going positively at the NW area meeting leading to a vote until Nick Bond (RIP) interjected and said something to the effect of "he's keen, we should let him have the opportunity to give it a go" which swung the vote I think and was a breath of fresh air

In reply to wbo:


My reaction to the phrase 'nice income generators' is: 'Ugh.'

Whether or not the BMC should be involved in courses and certification like that is one thing (i personally don't think so, and I'd run a mile from the idea of having to become a 'certified belayer' - however, we can discuss it.) But to suggest that the BMC might get involved in things like that partly because doing so might be a good little earner, is total anathema.

In reply to Rob Parsons: Well the activities the BMC provide don't all come for free and that money needs to come from somewhere . As the BMC certainly don't have a magic money tree and various parts of the organisation go 'UUgh' to commercial activities, funding from SPort England, funding from wherever that money needs to come from somewhere else it will all fall on membership fees . There are some good , useful services the BMC can provide that can benefit all.

The 'Brattkort' is incredibly useful - I can walk into any wall in Norway and climb/belay without having to undergo any exam or test. Where that process especially useful is with the many smaller walls in sports centres without qualified management -you are presumed safe and left to get on with it.

In reply to Andy Say: It could be, and it could certainly provide a template for how to manage it. I've heard people whing it's too difficult for the UK, but I really don't buy that. you need a list of people qualified to give out the qual, and a list of people who've got the qual.

In reply to colin struthers:


One very important recommendation in the report is that there should be a review every 3 years, so they may well change!

In reply to wbo:


This could be a very useful thing - it's quite a pain having to fill in yet another form when you want to climb at a different wall.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Yup. Similar system are also in Finland and I believe in Sweden.

The belay Card in Finland isn’t a part of our version of BMC, but an independent organisaation. But it is supported by the local BMC.

In reply to colin struthers:

I'm not an expert in these matters but they seem to have got it sorted in skiing with the Skiclub GB representing recreational skiers and the British Ski+Snowboard representing competitors and being the NGB.

So why can't climbing do the same?

In reply to Mark Kemball:

You will still have to fill in a form - the Brattkort system is just a competency test and it would not replace a wall needing/wanting to have your details on file.

In reply to Stravaig:

Are you really trying to equate the BMC with the Ski Club GB?

https://www.skiclub.co.uk/membership

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Three years is hardly any time soon.

And besides,

'Whoops, sorry, we didn't realise that there were aspects of the report that the majority of members disagreed with at the time when we asked you to approve the whole document as a single package. But hey, don't worry, in three years time you might be able to change it'

is not really very convincing, is it?

In reply to wbo:


Mine wasn't an objection to commercial activities per se; it was a reaction to the idea that the BMC might go after 'nice little earners' for their own sake, rather than because they're an intrinsically worthwhile thing.


Perhaps best to leave mentions of the 'magic money tree' out of this! That didn't turn out too well last time ...

In reply to Andy Say:


Yeah, possibly.

In reply to colin struthers:





So what review period do you propose? Daily? Weekly? Or perhaps you’d like Turnbull to give you a call every hour on the hour to make sure you’re happy.

In reply to Stravaig:



Hate to say this but BMC is also the NGB for ski-mountaineering

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/articles/tag/ski%20mountaineering

In reply to rj_townsend:


If you want to be cute with snide remarks then at least make them relevant to the opinion you disagree with - otherwise it just looks like you don't understand the argument.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a 3 year cycle for reviewing the memoranda and articles and I didn't propose a 'different period'

The point I was actually making was that we should try to ensure that the conclusion of the review actually reflects what the members want first time round.

I thought that was pretty clear from what I had written, but evidently not to you.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



£66 per year! - bring it on

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



No of course not, my point was that in skiing the NGB is completely separate to the recreational club.

Also for Shark, if he's thinking of joining, the equivalent subs is £46, only slightly more than the BMC full member

In reply to Stravaig:
I have been a member of the Scgb, in no way is it representative of UK skiers. It is no more than a small and diminishing clique out of touch with the vast body of skiers. The BMC is not yet in that position but ignoring some sectors of UK climbers could be a step in that direction.

The Scgb does have a good off piste (and on piste) package holiday business and low cost guided skiing in some resorts.

In reply to colin struthers:

Thanks for the reply. With reference to your last line I stand by what I said but my comments were made with all due respect to you and I hope that came across.

In reply to Stravaig:




Happy to settle at raising subs to £46 for BMC membership. Good luck persuading the clubs that it is only slightly more

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

That's not what I'm saying as you well know

But if everyone who is registered at a climbing wall also paid the affiliated club subs then the club subs would only need to be a few pence

In reply to colin struthers:

Hi Colin
Just to sum up - the ORG are going round speaking to all the area meetings (twice!), there are 4 different threads on UKC concerned with the ORG, the BMC have published 3 different versions of the report (from 1 page to full), and the video of the presentation, and the detail of the members survey, and are at pains to get all members to complete an online survey to give their thoughts and input on the review. And the ORG have committed to update their recommendations in light of input from members. So is there anything more you suggest to "ensure that the conclusion of the review actually reflects what the members want first time round?". Just checking
Cheers
Paul

In reply to Stravaig:

No they wouldnt. A lot of it goes on the liability insurance benefit.

In reply to petecallaghan:



In the recommendations, there are 10 local areas + 4 directly elected members from the grassroots, so 14 votes.

There are currently 10 specialist committees, which we have recommended are reviewed (R36), in future, to ensure the correct separation of operational (working group) and policy forming (specialist committee). The suggestion was to potentially reduce the number of specialist committees (6 examples listed).

Clubs committee chair also now gets a seat on the members’ assembly.

In any event local area + grass roots directly elected members maintain a majority, assuming the number of specialist committees isn’t increased more than it is now.

In reply to Stravaig:


No that wasn't your point, you were implying that the SCGB = BMC minus the NGB bit for comps.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well I can assure you now that it was not my intention, it was that in skiing the NGB is completely separate to the recreational club.

In reply to Stravaig:



That doesn't sound like a great deal for climbing wall users (or owners) - certainly not a compelling reason we would use for marketing an indoor wall membership

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


So what reason would you use for marketing an indoor wall membership?

In reply to Stravaig:

Good discounts ideally on wall entry would be a good starting point and a lower price if the benefits don't stack up so highly.

In reply to Ian W:


I wonder if there is an angle here around the BMC liability insurance benefits to members and the climbing walls costs for liability insurance. If BMC's partner insurance company also offered liability insurance to climbing walls then maybe there could be a cost saving when a BMC member climbed at a BMC insured climbing wall.

This could play out as the climbing wall getting liability insurance from BMCs partner if it adds a BMC 'associate membership' to all wall memberships or the climbing wall offering a discount to people who were BMC members because it's insurer was already insuring the climber.

In reply to Stravaig:

Except the BMC is not, in any sense, a recreational club.

In reply to stp:



I can see where you're coming from here, but I think the problem is with what the climbing media, regards as "significant". On sight ascents of E6's and E7's are being done, even I believe E8's. They are hugely adventurous undertakings and, I would suggest, entirely comparable with Biven and Littlejohn's Moonraker ascent. But they sadly aren't perhaps as newsworthy because E7's and E8's aren't news when "elite" climbers are headpointing routes at E10 and E11. (Though IMO first onsights should be very newsworthy indeed).

I don't think that the fact that a route has been done before with top-rope practice in any way detracts from the adventure to be had by the first person to go for the on sight, or indeed subsequent ascents in this style.

I've not yet done Moonraker. It's on my wish-list, it will challenge my current ability, and I'm sure it will be a great adventure. The fact it's been done regularly by others for 50 years won't significantly detract from that. My ascent won't of course be cutting edge or newsworthy (unless perhaps I leave it a few years till I'm 80) but that won't bother me at all.

Martin

In reply to Paul Evans:

A decent survey that didn't bundle up a whole load of initiatives and simply asked 'support' or 'don't support' about them all. And instead of 'no opinion' I would suggest 'ambivalent about all's

In reply to Paul Evans:

Yes, for the different elements of the report not to be presented as a single take it or leave it package when it comes to a vote at the AGM

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



I'm pretty sure this was discussed in one of the nat council meetings a while back; Rehan had suggested something about a package to better engage with walls / indoor climbers, and liability insurance would surely be an obvious part of that, given its a standard member benefit.........I'd like to think its obvious enough for both the ABC and BMC to look at, but cant guarantee it! I think it probably got lost off in the "excitement" surrounding the monc and Rehans subsequent departure.

In reply to Mark Kemball:


That's great to hear but E5 and E6 are definitely not elite level climbing any more. That wouldn't have even been elite level in eighties. Even 8c (E9) isn't really elite level these days. Pete Dawson did True North (8c) at Kilnsey on his second try, and Will Bosi did about the same Evolution (8c+). If we count Hubble as 9a (E10) then that was the standard reached a quarter of a century ago.

In reply to Martin Hore:

I agree with a lot of what you say there. The comment about headpointing is definitely true and I think those that suggest a different grading scale like the H grade, to separate headpoints from traditional trad routes have the right idea.

But I think part of the problem is just to do with the way the rock is formed. The difficulty of trad routes doesn't seem to progress in a linear way it seems to me. Somewhere around E6/7 the protection tends to become less frequent and far less obvious to find. To climb those kind of routes without prior inspection/practice just makes them far, far more serious. For example there might be one specific placement for a very specific piece of gear, hidden and/or off to the side. If you don't know about it you're unlikely to find it and the route will be a death route. But if you know about it the route is suddenly safe.

I've done new routes like that. One route required a hex 1, on a rope, sideways in a small pocket. For me, having abbed the line first, knowing this made the route quite safe. But for anyone else not knowing that it would have been a nightmare? Whoever even carries hexes these days? Looking back I just wished I'd put a bolt in there. It would have been far more popular route, and I think it has been retrobolted recently in fact.

Anyway have fun on Moonraker. Definitely a fantastic route. Even the approach just getting to the foot of it is pretty exciting.

In reply to stp: E6 ground up on sight requires a different and arguably stronger skill set than headpoint E9 or sport 8c

In reply to kevin stephens:

In reply to kevin stephens:

While I agree with that I don't think it's skill set that's very hard to get. If you're not used to climbing trad and placing gear I think with a little bit of instruction and practice one can be perfectly proficient within a week or two. But one can't improve one's overall climbing ability much in the same amount of time. It's taken Ondra 5 years to improve from 9b+ to 9c. It only took him a week or so to get proficient at Valley climbing when he did Dawn Wall.

Also a serious bit of say 7a+ climbing that you might find on an E6 is going to feel a heck of a lot easier if you can climb 8c than for the person who only climbs 7b+ or 7c (difficulty of safe E6). They've just got so much more in hand.

Reality seems to bear this out. The hardest flash of any trad route (5.14a) is by Alex Megos who never trad climbs. Ondra's ascent of Dawn Wall is another example.

I think of 'the move' as the basic unit of climbing currency. If you can't do a particular move somewhere, be it safe or runout, you're never going to get up the route.