UKC

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/premier_posts/abc_digital_marketing_and_s...

"The ABC’s membership and Management Committee are interested in pursuing the development of an individual membership offer for indoor climbing.  We believe there is a gap in the market for those people who only climb indoor, who are looking to feel part of a bigger community. "

Is this a post "Climb Britain", the ABC's positioning to represent indoor climbers instead of the BMC and tussle for Sport England funding, the Olympics and comp climbing?

In reply to gravy:

Are people who only frequent indoor gyms/walls climbers?

In reply to subtle:

Apparently they are more than just climbers they are:

"predominantly young, urban and frankly quite cool"

 

 

In reply to subtle:

They're just as much climbers as the old farts who don't climb any more but still like to swing their weight around, try and influence the development of the pursuit, and belittle younger generations.

In reply to gravy:

i know a lot of people who only climb indoors but all of them aspire to climbing outdoors in some form or another. not sure that having a individual membership for indoor climbing would help them achieve this goal... and once they start climbing outdoors surely they'll jump ship to the BMC?

all sounds a little political to me, which is probably inevitable given the Olympic thing.

In reply to Valkyrie1968:

Nah

In reply to subtle:

Sure they are, a lot of them are far better climbers than me!

In reply to Larefia:

Ah, that explains why I don't go to climbing walls

In reply to gravy:

STOP PRESS: Noisy old farts grumble so much about climbing not being what it used to be that not enough is done to encourage young climbers who don't fit into the 60s/70s/80s mould. Leading inevitably to old farts grumbling about young people no longer being interested in becoming members.

In reply to Larefia:

As a 25 year old bloke who climbs regularly indoors and lives in a city I would suggest that they reevaluate their definition of "Cool".

In reply to gravy: They’re aiming for a 10 fold increase in people regularly using walls. That sounds horrendous, it’s bad enough on a winter evening as it is. (Unless they build massive super-walls).

 

In reply to gravy:

"It is for a self-employed contractor / freelancer who will have little or no budget to work with."

 

Nothing like demonstrating your commitment to putting skin in the game. Cheapskates.

In reply to Chris_Mellor: yup, this one even worse than Adventure Peaks’ post - would be nice to see these companies paying a fair rate for the jobs they want doing, which are not exactly thin on requirements. 

 

In reply to gravy:

We  can but hope.....

I climb indoors  2 or  3 times a week in winter and outside whenever and wherever  I can.  I climb  sport and trad, roped and solo, I boulder indoors and out. I even used to do snow and ice until I realised snow is for skiing down, not climbing up. So I do understand and accept that 'climbing' covers an awful lot of ground but I do think there is a growing  difference between outdoor climbers who treat the wall as a means to an end and those who see walls as the end point. This is not to belittle indoor-only climbers, I just feel it is a different game so I'd be perfectly happy to see indoor climbers having their own body exclusively representing their interests. After all, why should they chip in for access work  they never use? This is probably especially true of bouldering. I sit open mouthed at what Shauna C and her friends can do. It's utterly mind boggling and obviously has nothing to do with what punters like me bumble up...but more importantly, watching the videos, it seems to have very little to do with what the top outdoor boulders do either. Comp bouldering is just a whole new sport and deserves to be treated as such.

Perhaps a simple analogy would be people pushing weights in the gym. The  comp weight lifters, the comp body builders and the 'just here to drop the Christmas flab' crowd may all be pumping iron and sweating next to each other but they not playing the same game. Two of them have their own separate organisations to represent them and the third does not need on.e

In reply to subtle:

Are people who frequent indoor pools swimmers?

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Hard to see why indoor only climbers need any organisation at all since there interests (desire to climb at walls) are being covered by climbing wall operators and funded by the fees they pay.

In reply to gravy:

I'm waiting for the BMC to relinquish control of indoor and competition climbing before I renew my membership.

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

You know Shauna  *is* one of the top outdoor boulderers, right?

I know there are some people who just go to an indoor climbing wall for a bit of exercise because it's less boring than the gym. Fair enough.

But all the "indoor-only" climbers I've met who are passionate about climbing are *dying* to get outside, and just haven't yet had the opportunity or don't know how to find it (if you live in London and don't have a car and don't know where to go, it can be a bit tricky).

I've had a lot of conversations where I get treated as a guru who holds precious wisdom because I can tell people about when the southern sandstone might be in condition, or how to get to Burbage South Valley boulders on public transport. I've had conversations with some of the parkour kids who started bouldering for a bit of cross-training and now they've heard that there's this magic gritstone thing and they want to experience it.

People who love climbing love climbing.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

"I'm waiting for the BMC to relinquish control of indoor and competition climbing before I renew my membership."

Hardly a good idea given all that access work, safety work, lobbying work, crag purchase and maintenance etc is far from trivial these days. The furore which started at Olympic rumblings, accelerated at Climb Britain, kept the throttle down through the MoNC and is cruising along on in the ever extending OR has led to the loss of SE funding, subsequent loss of BMC jobs, particularly around volunteer support roles,  and huge wasted effort and resource. In contrast majority membership support for competition climbing has consitently been demonstated at area meetings and surveys, and the BMC were there from the start  (including involvement of several of the BMC 30).

 

 

In reply to Ciro:

Water is water. Plastic isn't rock. Though, funnily enough, I love indoor climbing but hate indoor swimming. It's all good if you enjoy it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Gravity is gravity, though

In reply to smithg:

 

Yes. It's all about the money.

In reply to slab_happy:

Of course I do. But the fact that the skills are eminently transferrable. does not make them the same game. For example the same hand/eye co-ordination and court craft involved will help to make many good tennis players  good squash players too but it doesn't make the games the same. The point I was making was that the vids I see of top outdoor bouldering look like a very different game from the almost acrobatic moves I come across in many videos of indoor comps. It may be actually in the different natures of the activities themselves. A fiendish outdoor problem can be worked for weeks/months/year with subtle variations of hold combinations and body positions. A comp route has to be designed to be hard enough to separate the best from the merely good yet must be capable of being read and climbed in a handful of goes. But that's just a guess

 

In reply to spenser:

As a 68 year old who climbs regularly at Westway, I'd say bl**dy freezing rather than cool!

In reply to Jim Nevill:

The Climbing Unit has now installed a functional heating system, everyone was quite happily bouldering away in T-Shirts on Monday evening!

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

The voice of reason. Thank you. I was going to put something with the same meaning but far more inflammatory but you've saved me from myself. 

It was in reply to "Subtle" above who wrote: "Are people who only frequent indoor gyms/walls climbers"? and was along the lines of No; not when compared with such names as, for instance, Slingsby, Mummery, Mallory, Collie, Herford, Smythe, Shipton, Kurz, Heckmair, Murray, Birkett, Dolphin, Kirkus, Edwards, Harding, Marshall, Patey, MacInnes, Brown, Whillans, Haston, Scott, Bonington, Robbins, Beckey, Kor, Ament, Bridwell, Hill, Buhl, Rebuffat, Terray, Lacedelli, Bonatti, Cassin, Messner, Rouse, Hargreaves, Fowler, Simpson, Tasker, Boardman, Livesey, Fawcett, Dawes, Anker, Ondra, Steck, Honnold, Sharma, Caldwell, Birkett, McLeod, McClure. And that's just a short list from looking along my bookshelves.

These fellas are / were climbers. People who never leave, or intend to leave, artificial climbing walls cannot be spoken of in the same terms. They are involved in a different activity, which is not meant to denigrate their grace, style, power, dedication or achievements, all of which one watches with admiration.

In reply to Martin Bennett:

Compared with that list, *none* of the rest of us are climbers.

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Ever seen photos of people trying "Lupino Lane"? Or, for that matter, the lads invariably to be found flinging themselves towards the top of "Deliverance" down at the Plantation? Or there's "Wings of Unreason" on the trad side. Etc..

And with respect, "it looks different in videos" is not a great justification for saying that things are fundamentally unrelated activities.

Videos of people walking up mountains in snow don't look like any of the kinds of climbing I personally do, and yet somehow I can accept the idea that it's related and I'm not going round demanding that the BMC chuck out the mountaineers.

And you seem to be overlooking the rest of my post. All the "indoor-only" climbers I've met who are passionate about climbing want to go outside, and if they haven't yet it's been through lack of opportunity.

And -- based on my own experience, and everything I've seen -- when we do make it outside, we don't go "well, this sucks, this is nothing like the climbing I was enjoying indoors". We typically go "my god, this is everything I loved, and even more so."

If I hadn't fallen in love with climbing at a bouldering wall under a railway arch, I would never have made it outdoors. The thing I love now is the same thing I loved then.

In reply to Martin Bennett:

Some of those are only rock climbers. People who never leave or intend to leave the crags.  How can you speak of them in the same terms as alpinists?

In reply to slab_happy:

Of course there is some crossover. We've all played silly dyno games on a Wednesday night but most outdoor bouldering seems to be about pretty controlled movement to me

Whoa. I think you are fighting a different battle here. Nobody is 'demanding' anything and certainly nobody is 'chucking out' anyone and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the BMC . The OP was about ABC making a play to start an organisation to represent indoor-only climbers. I personally happen to think that would be a good idea

Then they are not the people being discussed here. This is about people who are perfectly happy to climb at the wall and have no wish to go outside at all. According to one wall operator  I spoke to they account for about a quarter of wall users. That's a figure I find astonishing but since he is involved with several successful walls I must assume he knows his clientele. Seemingly they enjoy the exercise, the challenge and the crack but feel no need to take it outdoors.

 

In reply to slab_happy:

Well....there are a lot on that list climbing punter grades, so don’t beat yourself up too much.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

No beating up going on. I just don't think that when I first touched a bit of sandstone in the vicinity of Tunbridge Wells, I was magically transformed and suddenly became "comparable to" Toni Kurz or Adam Ondra (or any other name on that list) in a way that I wasn't the day before.

In reply to gravy:

In my view, the Climb Britain re-brand was an attempt to make the British Mountaineering Council more inclusive and representative of all climbers.

The fact that it failed, is undoubtedly part of the reason for this proposed schism.

Next step is the establishment of a separate association which uniquely represents sport/indoor/competition climbers. It will quickly gain credibility and influence because of the Olympics.

The step beyond that, is this new association vying with the BMC over the right to equip Britain's outdoor crags. The more members it has, the more influence it will wield.

The 'Old School' may live to regret the day they shouted down the Climb Britain re-brand!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Comparing a rowing machine session to rowing on water is a better analogue.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

That's a bit sad.  Don't you like climbing?   As is Martin Bennetts rather odd list of people ranging from people who were alpine pioneers to multiple indoor competition winners.  Can you explain Ondras presence on your list?

 

to Dubya - there is a lot for indoor climbers to gain from an active organization, things that are done now and more.

 

In reply to wbo:

Or the complete absence of any women climbers. Maybe women also are not "real" climbers. 

Like you I find this a bit sad. For the record I'm an older climber but I definitely feel more of an affinity with the more inclusive  attitudes of younger climbers. 

 

In reply to Cary Grant:

No, Hargreaves and Hill made it onto the list.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I understand what you're saying, and you make a fair point, in a nit-picking and perhaps mischievous sort of way. But I feel you know what I was inferring and, I suspect, concur with it in broad terms.

In reply to slab_happy: ah I missed them. Gripe partially retracted and slice of humble pie duly consumed.  

 

In reply to Martin Bennett:

No, I genuinely feel that climbing is a broad church with room for everyone from indoor only climbers to superalpinists. Indoor climbers and sport climbers have, I would have thought, more in common than sport climbers and alpinists - indeed many sport climbers will have started out as indoor climbers.

In reply to Martin Bennett:

I can't decide if this is funny or sad.

Of these people you hold up to as being far removed from indoor climbers:

one now makes his living from owning an running a large indoor climbing wall.

at least one other climbs almost exclusively inside.

There is a third that promotes and sells indoor training facilites.

Then there is the notable one often credited with making indoor climbing [walls] popular...

I really don't know why there is a constant need by some to demean indoor climbing. Distinguish, by all means, but don't discriminate. It really isn't any more valid than me dismissing high altitude mountaineering as mere snow plodding.

 

 

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

 

I can only give you five out of Ten for comprehension Iain. You took the time and trouble to pick holes in my, admittedly flawed, as you delighted in pointing out, illustrative list whilst paying no attention to my point, made in the third paragraph. 

Now that is a little sad since that point, made thus; "They are involved in a different activity, which is not meant to denigrate their grace, style, power, dedication or achievements, all of which one watches with admiration" concurs with your point of view, expressed as "Distinguish, by all means, but don't discriminate" in it's entirety. I felt I made it perfectly clear that I was indeed distinguishing without discriminating.

Thus we are in agreement.

Snow plodding, now. Better stay out of that minefield for fear of further misinterpretation!

 

In reply to subtle:

Well... you know... there's more to... but then again, different strokes...  

No, sorry, really can't be arsed with this again.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

What would be more telling could be the reasons why some folk would want to exclude indoor climbers from being 'proper' climbers, and why those reasons never seem to be made explicit.

In reply to john arran:

Because the old story goes like this: 

Climbers were few and far between. God like heroes who often died young. They spoke little. Just got on with it. The story of the ascent only got out after the expedition. 

But then the numbers increased. Climbers got better kit but everyone, even celebrities, started wearing it. They got better information which reduced the risk and so more people did it. They got better facilities including more cafes and indoor walls but this only weakened the climber gene pool.

Indoor climbers don't die enough, aren't tough enough, they laugh too much, there isn't enough hoar frost indoors and no pitons. They are too young. There is no millenial playlist blasting out on a north wall. 

Climbing is like football, it's been stolen from the true people. 

The indoor others don't understand climbing like I do. 

The story is as old as Mummery, Whillans and Balmat. 

There has never been an indoor climber called Walter Bonatti. 

That's why....

In reply to NeilBoyd:

Romanticised tosh. Climbing has always been about much more than death, and there's nothing heroic about dying climbing. If you want to know what a true hero is, there's a fantastic quote by Ellen McArthur when someone tries to call her sailing exploits heroic, and she puts them in their place.

In reply to danm:

Of course it's romanticised tosh Dan. But romantacised tosh is powerful stuff and people like to believe in it. 

In reply to subtle:

They climb stuff so technically speaking yes they are climbers. But they are only 'climbers' in the narrowest of scenes. They are people who only tackle the least committing, softest, safest, most hospitable climbing environment available, and usually complain about that (see threads about cold climbing walls). There are of course people who are super dedicated and super focused on their indoor climbing, people who probably put in far more effort into their pursuit than most trad climbers. But I don't think it's about ability or strength, it's about the depth of involvement and at an indoor wall that is very limited.

The degree to which one is a 'climber' goes beyond how much or how well you climb it's about the range of experience one gains through climbing. At the wall, although you've got difficulty the range is extremely limited which is why many upon finally climbing outdoors suddenly realise how much more it can offer just by being out there, on the real thing rather than the simplified simulation that is an indoor wall.

The range of climbing is vast and few of us can ever say we've experienced it all. Most will stick to an area which in its self is large enough to provide a rich bounty of experiences, in my case, it's been trad, sport, and now bouldering with plenty of indoor climbing spread between. For others, it'll be a different mix but they'll all get a good fill of some of the experiences climbing can offer. Those who only ever climb inside however are scraping around in the dirt and chalk dust subsisting on what little can be extracted from indoor climbing alone. 

And that is why they are often looked down on, it's not that they are lesser beings it's that they pursue a sport which offers so much yet choose never to explore beyond the doorstep of it. It's almost like taking up rowing but never progressing beyond a rowing machine, you might become a beast on it but real rowers are just going to think you're weird and missing the point. 

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Out of interest, do you think there are people who also do some outdoor climbing but who fail to have sufficient depth of involvement or range of experience to be "real climbers"?

Or is a single contact with rock sufficient to make one "real"?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

In short, then: 'This is what being a climber means to me and I refuse to believe it can mean anything else to others.'

 

In reply to slab_happy:

It's up to the individual how much experience they need to feel content with climbing it's simply that those who are content with such a limited range as only indoors seem to others to be content with very little and this may seem odd to those who seek more.  But to answer your question, no going outdoors once is not enough, it may at least open ones eyes to the possibilities and they'll have greater insight than someone who's never been but it's going to take more than one little try to soak it in.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I find that a very odd attitude. Those who climb hard on alpine routes could spin a yarn about cragging and bouldering in the same way but it would also be very odd. In reality, as per the famous essay, climbing has many games and indoor climbing is logically part of that. There is still risk (only the truly dumb think otherwise) and movement can be as easy or as hard as one wants. There are benefits too..  controlled training environments, less ecologically damaging, a tad cheaper (looking at the cost of transport on average),  much more accesible and equitable  (our outdoor games are still noticably more white, middle class and male). If you had lauded the additional joys of climbing outside I would be right behind you, so why force a silly negative on indoor activities, rather than be poetic about the outdoor positives (many of which are only loosely connected to the particular climbing game)?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Okay, so how many times is enough?

In reply to Offwidth:

Seconded. I spend plenty of my time evangelizing about the joys of climbing outdoors and sharing info and advice on how to get outside (as mentioned, if you live in London and don't have a car, it's not necessarily obvious or easy). I believe and tell people that outdoor climbing is full of all sorts of richness and subtlety and pleasures that you don't get indoors.

What I object to vehemently is the mean-spirited and incorrect idea that people who've only climbed indoors are somehow not "real climbers".

Historically, of course, they did. For ages, you weren't a "real" climber if you didn't climb in the Alps at least; climbing in the UK was just training. Then cragging -- piddly little rocks like Stanage that don't even have a summit -- was just training for "real" climbing on mountains. And there are still people who'll tell you that bouldering isn't "real" climbing, it's just training for routes. Etc., etc..

I want to know when the lightning struck and I officially became A Real Climber, because I didn't notice it at the time. First outdoor bouldering? First trad route? First walk-in over half an hour? I've never been up a proper mountain and never been to the Alps, and I don't want to -- maybe I'm still not real?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Your arguments could equally be extended the other way. The climber who only climbs onsight trad routes is missing out on the full range of climbing experience too. I was once that person, dismissive of anything else which people called climbing but which didn't follow my own narrow-minded passion. I now understand the appeal of hard sport redpointing, where people often train and risk wasting an entire season for one ephemeral experience. It still isn't for me, but I get it.

Indoor climbing, and competitions in particular, are no different. Imagine putting a career on hold, giving up booze and training constantly, all for the chance of blowing it with one unfortunate slip of a foot. It's a different sort of risk, but actually it's no great surprise at the amount of cross-over between top level indoor climbers and the other sorts of climbing, because many of the mental drivers are transferable. When you look at it with an open mind, you'll see that climbing is just climbing, wherever or on whatever you do it on.

In reply to gravy:

 

This is getting a bit heavy but on a miserable Saturday morning....here's a couple of theories

I wonder if at its most basic it is a tribal identity thing.  Until comparatively recently climbing was an outdoor-only activity and the  actual climbing (as in physically gaining height) was only part of a much greater experience which might include some, all or none of: appreciation  of the outdoors/risk/alternative lifestyle/dossing/rebellion/ individualism/ etc etc. This is even reflected in the tales we tell each other, the best of which often have little to do with actual climbing, which is pretty damned boring, and much more to do with the misadventures and anarchy that surround it. The climbing was almost just the excuse. Recently, for example, it was noticeable that while some Jim Bridwell obits included pix  of him climbing almost all those I saw had that iconic '3 hippies' shot from the foot of El Cap, as if that said more about the man than his routes did. How many 'Whillans stories' actually involve climbing?   I have a friend who used to come away with us occasionally who said she loved everything about climbing 'except the actual bloody climbing' .

Outdoor climbers also need a far greater range of skills than those required on the wall - not least judgement and the willingness to back it against potential injury or death (real or imagined) and perhaps they view indoor-only climbers as not having paid their full dues. Not worthy of being members of the tribe. The same attitudes are sometimes directed at top ropers too.

Against that holistic experience I suspect that some outdoor climbers consider  those  who only ever climb on health-and-safety-approved, competence checked, supervised indoor walls are at best lightweight interlopers and at worst frauds trying to annexe their own jealously-guarded label of 'climber' without actually earning it. Perhaps they even  worry it devalues their own wild and edgy self-image  because, let's face it, as a group we are nauseatingly proud of our little subculture and a lots do like to advertise their membership. Nobody, for example, has ever come out for the evening in my local pub dressed in their tennis gear, aerobics kit or cricket whites but, my God,  don't the climbers like to let you know who they are, decked out in lurid cragging keks,  look-where-I've-been t-shirts and studiously branded jackets.

Anyway, as I said, just theories. Could be wrong

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Question -- do you think that jealously guarding our "tribal identity" militates against actual individualism/rebellion?

What happens when we start valuing our self-image and our subculture over loving the "actual bloody climbing"? Because that doesn't actually strike me as a *good* thing.

In reply to slab_happy:

No idea, mate. Just idle musings on a bored Saturday. Can't get terribly worked up about it

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:one thing that really marks out 'real climbers' is that they don't like being told what to do by their forbears/'old people'. 

 

In reply to slab_happy:

Sorry for the last of response (I'd been out climbing on rock most of the day).

You need to go outdoor climbing exactly 11 times to have absorbed exactly enough of the country air, feel of the rock, views, and general overall experience of going out climbing to qualify. Obviously, that's nonsense.

As I said early on the range of experiences climbing offers is vast, from a single move between two bits of plastic to literally scaling Mt. Everest. It's impossible to exactly quantify units of experience and say you need X units to have had a respectable enough insight into the sport to be deemed a proper climber.

Just to be clear by the way by "experience" I'm not just talking about literally doing moves on the wall but the events of the whole day out. So it could include, the walking in, the views, jumping across a stream, scrambling up some iffy scree, getting your ropes tangled or dealing with the weather, sorting your gear ou after a lead, keeping your boots clean, having your lunch. the walkout again etc etc. And that's before you get into the trials and tribulations of actually climbing some rock/ice/mountains. all of which are vastly more varied than anything you'll encounter indoors.   

So what you can say, is indoor climbing whether you just pop down the wall once a week for fitness or if you're a hardcore, indoor only beast. Is that of the vast range of experiences all of climbing can offer by restricting yourself to just indoor climbing you're only ever going to encounter a very small percentage of what's possible and most of what you do experience will be pretty tame. No one is going to enjoy hearing the tale of that day you went to the wall and tired the purple problem only to find the hold was really greasy so you came off and had to brush it.

Now of course as I've also said, few if anyone really experiences all of what climbing can offer but once you get outside you open up the range significantly, whether you're bouldering or big walling. And I'd say that whatever the minimum percentage of climbing experiences you need to have gained to have a respectable claim on the term 'climber' is greater than the maximum amount which can be gained solely from climbing indoors. Just by having say one season's worth of trad climbing behind you you'd probably increase your range of experiences gain from climbing by a factor of 10. 

In reply to danm:

Another way of putting it this. 

Everyone who climbs in the sense we understand it is a climber by definition.

What I'm trying to highlight is the degree to which one is a climber. I'm measuring that by the range of general experiences gained from climbing, not grade. Someone who's just done an intro course at the wall is a climber, someone who's had 20 years of trad climbing behind them and whose whole life is shaped by climbing is a climber but one is clearly more so than the other. why is that? Equally a veteran indoor comp climber could probably lay a greater claim to being a climber than someone who's just done a weekend course top roping outside with an instructor.

It's not that there is anything wrong with indoor climbing, I've done plenty of it over the decades and still do, in fact, I was once a junior international competition climber and member of the British team back in 1999-2001 so I've been there and done that whole side of things. At that level, it's pushing the range of experiences indoor climbing can offer to an extreme only a tiny fraction of indoor climbers will ever experience. But even at that level, there is so much more to gain from also climbing outside in any discipline which you'd never get indoor climbing and I think you need at least some of those experiences to really be able to lay a decent and respectable claim to being "a climber". 

It's not like you get awarded a medal either, it's just a matter of how respected that claim you're making is to those around you who know what you do. For example, I go mountain biking sometimes, but I'd never dream of calling myself "a mountain biker" around friends who are dedicated to mountain biking, they'd laugh at me and rightly so.  

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

One thing the ABC might deliver is a "value added" service like some kind of "climbing licence" included in such a membership - i.e. a standardised belay test you only have to do once rather than faffing about each time you visit a wall.  That would I think get a fair chunk of people interested in a membership.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It's a very long time since I was actively involved with BMC work but it seems to me that the BMC has been pussy-footing around the issue of adolescent participation for a long time, happily leaving it to others to take up the mantle with NICAS and NIBAS and doing little more than the minimum to better support and facilitate young outdoor climbers. No doubt this has been partly in response to the loud-mouthed dinosaurs' doom-mongering about participation levels and what 'real' climbing should be, but in the process it may well have allowed the BMC as an institution to become far less relevant to large groups of new young climbers and indoor climbers.

Further siphoning off of elements such as indoor and youth participation/progression will only accelerate the process by which the BMC ends up with little more relevance to young and not-so-young climbers than does the Alpine Club. That would be a sad road to follow.

In reply to gravy:The BMC provides a wide range of valuable services to the broad and rich range of outdoor climbing activities. I don’t understand the need for or point of the ABC. As wall users whatever our reason we are simply customers, successful walls generally look after their customers, why do we (even if exclusive indoor climbers) need an association? Do people who subscribe to gym membership need an association? OK maybe to encourage minimum standards for coffee, flapjacks or music but I can’t think of any other. Competition climbing is as far removed from almost all indoor wall users as it is from hill walkers and as far as I am aware almost all competitors are actively involved in outdoor climbing too. If the BMC wants to be involved in competitions I’m cool with that. With the loss of influence of clubs the BMC has an important educational role in the transition of wall users to outdoor climbing (for those that want to) to avoid the sort of access problems caused by inconsiderate actions often reported on these forums. In summary the ABC has no justification and could be harmful in sidelining an important role of the BMC

 

In reply to gravy:

I think there is one thing in this debate that everyone needs to do - put aside the idea of ageism.

We are all young at some point, all old at some point. We are both. Please take it out of the equation and the debate.

I know some 25 year olds who are "older" in attitude and some 80 year olds who are "younger" in attitude, and vice-versa of course. Age is no discriminator so we shouldn't use it.

DC