UKC

'Our climbing world may well be in the best state than it's ever been. And yet it may also be under threat. Complacency might be fatal.'

Fantastic article.  Resonates with my gut instincts superbly. 

Mike

Jeezo, Can't we just talk about Brexit!?! Deep. I need a bit of time to digest this Mick but thanks all the same... It'll make me think some (Not least because I am 41- age of duty?).

This is an excellent and very well written article Mick. You clearly make some very salient points which echo many of my own views. Some great photos, I love the ones of Pat F on Sloth and of Snells field, happy days.

Chris

Very good article, hits the nail on the head that both climbing and society have changed, partly for the better and partly for the worse. I'll need to read it a few more times for the finer points to sink into my slow brain.

The bit about people starting on climbing walls (or gyms, even) rather than progressing through hillwalking and mountaineering was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago: I was in a quiet bar, about the only others in were a small group who were in their early twenties. They were asking each other whether they had been climbing recently so I wondered if any would say they'd been to Scotland or maybe abroad (not loads going on in N Wales at the time, I think).

I quickly realised they were meaning if they'd been to the wall when one of them said "Oh, when the weather gets better I'll take you trad climbing."

I was a bit taken-aback when I heard this: I mean, it's just climbing, what other sort could you do?! No need to describe it as such, surely? I thought for a minute and realised a couple of things: that climbing has changed and that I am old. The continuing conversation confirmed things for me:

"What's trad climbing?"

"Oh, it's climbing outdoors, you know, like traditional British climbing and you have to put your own protection in and things."

Well, I hope that they do get out and enjoy it and be safe.

I great piece Mick, that makes some very valid points. The challenge is how to pass the flame without it going out.

Steve.

Great, thought provoking article. Just a minor point, Dave Graham climbed Realization in 2007. 

Great read, agree with much of it.

Thanks Mick, I was thinking of arguing about a couple of points near the beginning but as I continued reading I realised that, compared to the points being made, they were trivial points of detail.

And I look forward to the next installment in 20 years time.

Great article. Thanks for articulating some of the values that me and my teenage mates started climbing with a long time ago. We, in our turn, were influenced by the lives and deeds of climbers who are now dead and gone. The past, truly is, another country. 

What, exactly, is under threat? from where?

and what should be preserved?

Love your writing Mick. Thank you. 

Yes on so many points, Mick. My way into climbing was through hillwalking which led to caving and cragging. To me, the writing was on the wall when, more and more, retro bolting became acceptable on trad limestone. This has led to the virtual abandonment of once popular crags for the safer convenience of sport. Unless there's a revival of interest in trad limestone at the lower grades then I think all limestone will become fair game for the drillers in time.

Great article. Reminded me of why I loved climbing. And I think whatever the commercial direction taken by some aspects of climbing there will always be a place for adventure

I don't buy the argument that climbers starting out in walls don't go on to climb in the sense that we all do. I started in a wall, like all of my friends and partners that I can think of, all of whom are off doing everything from bouldering to himalayan alpinism. In a professional context i meet lots of people making the same transition. Take a look at the current crop of top trad climbers, with the odd exception the thing that links them all way their youths spent competing on indoor walls.

Really great article, Mick. 

as it happens, I’m pitching something to the Guardian for their long read series, on the history of (Trad) climbing and how it has ended up in the Olympics, with the result that there are almost two sports now: the shiny Olympic one, and the one that is rooted in the history (and in climbing actual rocks). Your article made me think of an interesting irony: that it was in the nation with the fiercest Trad ethos that the Olympic climbing event has its ultimate origin - because it was really Ben Moon and Jerry Moffat who mainstreamed climbing training amongst the elites by showing the standards it could lead to and (with French and German climbers of course pushing on in turn) and the Foundary is as you say the place where the modern climbing gym was born. So Britain has some of the best rock and best rock climbers in the world, we didn’t invent competition climbing but we made the modern version possible - and yet we don’t dominate competition climbing in part because that is not what we do. Hence, two different sports with the same name and occupying some of the same spaces - but they are not the same. Which is perhaps somewhat unique? I’m sure there is nothing equivalent in say gymnastics or archery, or even perhaps free form sports like surfing and skating. 

It's all different in France - the rot is well advanced  

I bloody hope not too many of the current crop make it outside the walls mobbed they can stay off the crags

This should be compulsory reading for all, gifting us as it does a blend of optimism and grave warnings of what may be be under threat.  I agree that climbing is more varied and more inclusive than ever and yet is in danger of loosing its differential magic and true worth as the sanitized world and attempts at control creep in.  We should remember that the wild, committing and beautiful still exist and new generations are finding exciting ways of testing themselves, placing great reliance on fine judgements in ways that older generations could never imagine.  However making the outdoors more inclusive and accessible inevitably means lowering the barriers to entry, and this means lowering the requirements to make decisions and judgements rather than lowering the physical requirement of the activity.  The trick that we (as a community) have to learn is to embrace this change while preserving a value system and environment that allows those that want to gain a deeper and longer lasting experience the chance to do so.  Having just walked some 'great walks' in New Zealand the experience was unfulfilling purely because the regulated approach and groomed trails, although encouraging participation, removed the need for any judgement and decision making.        

I think similarly strong local ethics are (or certainly were) in place on the sandstone pillars of Saxony, and as for Ben and Jerry showing the world what training can do - they both learnt a lot from their travels to the Frankenjura and the US. It's the old 'standing on the shoulders of giants' malarkey

The same exists in the world of competitive ski racing vs the world of ski touring/ski mountaineering.  Its all skiing but massively different in terms of skills and values

Great article Mick. We're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Numbers numbers, parallel lines on the crag, just the Moves but what about the Line and the Stage?  The crags become productions, commodities to use your word. Imagine Scafell with sports parallelism on it - and only the bottom 30 metres bothered with. Fast food, we get loads done but it's not feeding the soul. Piste skiing. I gave up team sports as a teenager in the 60s because climbing gave so much more - would I have done so now? It's still good but it's weaker, less rich. A good 'sport' but not free-ing, life-giving as I remember it- maybe I'm just old! It all tends to feel like training.  

Cheers Mick insightful and thought provoking as always.

Yes, of course, and I agree. Still working my thoughts on this out a bit; didn’t phrase things well in my post.

In reply to Neil McA:

good point - but both sports have mountains in common and a shared ancestry in mountaineering, which surely matters? Or are there examples that aren’t at all mountain based?

I think you are misreading the article---he never said all climbers, and seemed to me to be taking care to avoid making universal statements. 

If climbing walls are becoming the most prominent port of entry to the world of climbing, then I'd read Mick as saying that the doors are much bigger than in the hillwalking days, and the demographic streaming through them is far broader in its relation to climbing, and is already subject to, if not fully immersed in, the commoditization of the activity that he warns about.  The desire for "sanitization," which is to say the pursuit of convenience and the elimination of  intrinsic risks imposed by nature, has played out on this site and others across the world and surely is beyond question as a feature of the contemporary climbing scene.  That some of those who have passed through the gyms have gone on to excel at the traditional arts in no way diminishes the strength of Mick's observations, nor has he ignored them in the way suggested by your remark.

what use is a warning without a means of acting ? who or what can stop those trends which have already set in - can we vote that Coca Cola not be allowed to sponsor climbers ? Perso I would vote redbull out too

Climbing walls aren't becoming the the most prominent port of entry to the world of climbing, they are and they have been for the better part of 30 years. I think that virtually everyone I've ever climbed with under the age of, say, 50 spent most of their early climbing days at the wall.

I don't disagree with the article  but I do feel that a note of caution should be sounded whenever we suggest that the correct ethics are somehow fixed in time. It isn't the case that at some point in the late 80s there was a collective realisation of what the right ethics are. Rather a rough and ready consensus arrived which sought to preserve what the climbers of the day valued most. In time those priorities will shift and trying to enforce an ethical code which isn't aligned to them will be like trying to hold back the tide. If you want to preserve ethics as they are now then show the newer generations the experiences that those ethics give you and let them ascribe their own values to them. My experience is that the number of people who radically diverge from current consensus will be vanishingly small.

I believe that the growth of climbing tourism reflects its commoditisation. You only have to look at Kalymnos etc to understand this.

this has been going on for. 30 years ever since. French villages paid for professional bolting in places like Orgon etc to encourage visitors. 

I know that it is not fashionable to say this, but I have  enjoyed watching the speed climbing on the TV.

John

You clearly need some "reeducation".

well, you know, if you don't like something that's meant to be entertaining: moral purity. if you were entertaned: then it's exploitation to death by big-climb, or something.

Superb and thought provoking article Mick! Cheers Dave

Brilliant article Mick, thank you

Actually, I feel like I should add another thought...

Looking at it from the perspective of a wall bred climber with ~20 years experience indoors and ~17 years outdoors, the people I see driving many of the changes to climbing culture you describe aren't my contemporaries or my juniors, they're the climbers who grew up in the 60s and 70s and have perhaps reached an age where adventure understandably takes a back seat to convenience and safety. If I turn up at a newly rebolted quarry, it's not keen newbies that I encounter (climbing or equipping) , it's typically the elder statesmen of the local climbing community. These are the people driving the push towards lineless, souless clipups with which, IMO, comes an inevitable focus on grades over experience.

I don't mean this as a criticism, I quite like a souless clipup personally, but it's very easy to blame this change on climbing walls and the new generation but I'm not convinced the idea holds up.

Yep. This pretty much sums it up on many Dales limestone crags nowadays.

You start by discussing the increasing commercialisation of professional climbing but then this narrative shifts into a critique of ordinary people enjoying indoor climbing and sport climbing. There’s a gap in your argument that I think needs further explanation or exploration. Trad climbing is very much still alive, no need to be threatened by other folks who prefer to climb in a slightly different way. Furthermore, I think that your argument would be more compelling if you provided some examples of exactly where ‘regulation’ has ruined the culture of climbing, or might do so in the future.

That being said, I do appreciate your positive comments at the top of the article. I think that we agree about how friendly and supportive the climbing community is, and that it is important to keep that culture going. Thanks.

Be careful what you wish for. Quite a few mountain bikers would have had career ending injuries had they not been sponsored by Red bull who threw their money behind medical treatment etc. I'm all for picking a more "ethical" sponsor but it has to be someone with the same or better resources.

Thats twisted reasoning. They were pushing their limits to please their sponsors !

They were pushing their limits to please their sponsors !

that's an assumption on your part, unless you can point us to someone who said so themself.

do you think Mr Honnold only did what he did because there was a movie to be made?

Virtually yes. The value of any 'achievement' is what the onlookers give it - this is inescapeable. A movie multiplies the audience and the incentive to push the envelope.

I've done an awful lot of soloing over the years, usually onsight and to a reasonably high standard. On most of the hardest ones there were no onlookers and no photographic or video record. The value of these 'achievements' has always been almost entirely personal.

One's own values and presumed norms are not necessarily shared by others.

One man's soulless clip-up is another man's search to through the darkness of his inner torment to find a fleeting state of nirvana, one that may only ever be held for an instant before being lost again in a fog of self-loathing. The focus on grades is just a gateway. 😊

That's just nonsense. Some people, perhaps including you, may judge  the value of their actions by the approval or otherwise of other people but many others do things for their own personal satisfaction. They may enjoy any admiration as a spinoff - the two are not mutually exclusive - but the prime motivation was always entirely personal.

Walking down the road and being hit by a car is pushing the limits? 

Being able to walk again is just for the praise from others?

I disagree.  For much of my climbing career, before it became more mainstream, most none climbers thought it was a stupid activity, that's hardly a positive value. I have always climbed for myself and no one else. Admittedly ego does creep in now and again.  Years ago I pissed up Billy Whiz at Lawrencefield to a round of applause from a crowd of climbers and none climbers and it did give me a slight buzz much to the annoyance of my partner who had just failed but put most of the runners in. And who doesn't get a smug feeling of satisfaction when your second struggles on something you have just led

Al

Many thanks indeed to people for their comments. (Thanks for caring!) Will try to reply as best I can.

Mick

That absolutely made my day yesterday!  Thank you so much for letting me know. Obviously he was/is good enough but there's always a bogey route which seems to see one off.

Am never sure whether it's Biographie (extension) or Realization. Will go with the latter, in future. Thanks again.

Mick

The spirit of climbing. (That which brings us joy.)

Them and us.

The spirit of climbing.

Mick

Interesting opinion piece. 

I started climbing on indoor walls in '87. It's 30+ years ago that climbers typically evolved from a hillwalking background.

We learnt the trad craft by going trad climbing, having trained on indoor walls. We raced up the grades because we trained indoors, and we also learnt to bivi. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

So yes, things are very different from the '60s/'70s, but not that different to the '80s and '90s IMO (apart from there being more women in climbing - a good thing).

Lots of other sports involve risk, are growing at a fast rate and have similar commercial pressures (off piste skiing, mountain/trail/fell running spring to mind). 

I think the 'problem' with climbing is that a lot of older climbers are very inward looking. They are proud to identify themselves as climbers first and foremost, but they don't always realise, nor appreciate that there are other sports out there where risk is sought out, where the participants don't get overly precious about terms such as 'athlete'.

When we have young climbers such as Jim Pope seeking out new routes on rock, as well as competing at a world-class level indoors, or Pete Whittaker develop from trad - big wall - winter/Alpine, I'm not too worried and reckon the 'spirit of climbing' is alive and well. Both of these individuals are 'brand ambassadors', but are far from playing it 'safe'. 

Started the article thinking that it was a bit over the top. Then I remembered what Snell's field (and even the Biolay) and a couple of days spent with Tony Wilmot were actually like.

By the time I finished I wholly agreed especially the influence of climbing walls. This even though visiting a climbing wall is about all I do these days.

Rose tinted spectacles, what rose tinted spectacles?

Rgold has replied much better than I ever could. Pretty much any top climber now starts as a wall rat. And, of course, some normal people go on to other disciplines. My guess is that the two most favoured disciplines are sport climbing and (increasingly) bouldering. Why? Because they most resemble indoor climbing. And, if so, that's entirely understandable.

I can think of a small local wall, near to me, which has produced about 100 climbers, in the last few years. Of that 100, maybe a dozen climb sport regularly. About four like occasional trad. Only one has fully embraced trad, winter climbing and Alpine climbing. Ironically he's now discovered bouldering!  (Caveat: this is just one tiny example, probably skewed by those people living so close to a very popular sport area.)

Re indoor climbing, all I'm suggesting is that it's a structural change and, in my experience, structural changes tend to have consequences - sooner or later.

Just to be absolutely clear: I'm not against indoor climbing, sport climbing or bouldering. What I am for is the joy of climbing. And my feeling (yes, it's only a feeling!) is that over-commercialisation and/or over-regulation of anything kills joy.

Mick

Who's them? 

Them that are spoiling your joy. Many people seem quite capable of enjoying climbing, in whatever guise they choose, without it being spoilt by others. 

That, like climbing, is very, very, broad. 

Many thanks for your comments.

Just to be absolutely clear: I'm not against indoor climbing, sport climbing or bouldering. It's not about trad versus sport. It's not about the past versus the present. It's about soulfulness versus soullessness.

Re regulation, as mentioned, I fear for the future, not so much today. But let's take a few examples.

I believe that, in more than one case, grieving relatives have tried to legally close down climbing in Yosemite. Their child died. Why shouldn't they do a public duty and make it safe for everyone?

A few years ago, a politician tried to get climbing shut down in a pretty large area of Catalunya, ostensibly to protect peregrines. It seemed they were in no danger, the guy couldn't care less anyway and just wanted some political brownie points. Thankfully it got thrown out.

Charlie Creese mentioned, a while ago, about significant access being closed to climbers in Australia. I'm sorry, I can't remember the details but it sounded bad.

A while back, a climbing area in the US got closed down (temporarily?) because of bolt wars. As it happens, I had a lot of sympathy with this. The bolt wars - ugly at any time - had got way out of hand. In this case, it seemed that the climbers had failed to reach a consensus and the authorities felt obliged to step in.

I gather that if you go bolting in much of France and in Kaly, you'll very quickly run into regulation. Your experiences may vary greatly in terms of whether you're 'in with the in-crowd' of regulators (who may be both judge and jury). Thankfully this is something I don't have to put up with.

Mick

Reminded me of the senior members of the club I joined in 1967 mumbling into their pints of mild; "rock monkeys"' "ITV climbers", bloody postcards of climbers", "no hillcraft" etc etc.

Please see some examples in the post below yours'.

Mick

Would this be the same club whose members took Pete to one side and told him, "Don't ever show us up like that again!" after he'd pissed up Stroof in the rain, for his first ever route?

But I forgot... you have your own feelings about Pete and the other 'heroes of Portland'.

Mick

Sharma named the route Realization following the rules from that side of the pond (who ever ticks the FA names the stuff), where as in France the rule had long been that the equipper with the vision names them (Lafaille, and Biographie).

So either is fine and correct, it's just which rules you play by...

Sharma himself was asked about it a few years back when he was doing a talk. And I seem to recall he's answer was pretty much the same as my reply (where I came from, I get to name it... where it is, Lafaille's name should stick)... he was actually quite cunning as he never said what it should be called.


Great article btw. Even from a non UK perspective. And a couple of things do really stand out, these days even the pro's are really nice to complete n00bs (also old pro's, that have nothing to loose anymore). As for the grade-hunting mentality. The media and results focused mentality (that is easy to get into at an indoor wall) push for that, but luckily there are also a lot of pro's that don't give a rats ass about it (at least they don't make a big deal about it). E.g. Niccola Ceria of Italy has done extensive climbing (bouldering) trips around the globe for a good many years, and produces numerous good pics, videos, and words of his adventures. But I don't recall him mentioning the grades (or heck, sometimes even the names of the problems are missing), he often leaves the beaty of the climb speak for it self.

Pete who?

For you maybe, but perhaps the dynamic of motivation is different for a sponsored climber (or biker) - I mean it is their raison d'être to achieve, and in the context of redbull - even to show-off

NB. 'onlooker' includes all those who witness the event, whether in person or down the pub

podge - you didn't explain the accident happened 'out of working hours' ?? that could make a difference

I believe it was Zillertal. Lots of really good bouldering was mainly in danger of loosing access ... I seem to recall a petition was put up and not much (if anything) was lost. The higher altitude stuff was pretty much un-affected, as was the sport climbing in the valley (AFAIK).
Ref. https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/zillertal-bouldering-area-t...

thanks for the examples. none of which seems to have much relevance to the article.

perhaps you didn't write the arrticle you wanted to.

dunno if you intended this, but your reply here makes you come across like a right tosser 

Some good points here, Mick. However, some of the historical categories and divisions you are working with obfuscate the analysis in places.

'The more we govern our own affairs, the better', is a principle I can get on board with. But, what does it really mean? Your ideal is the anarchic: people who are invested in climbing go and do things off their own back, regulated only by community norms. This is something I respect a lot, and still exists (e.g. crag clean-ups or volunteers looking after access), but it is in tension with the sheer amount of people who now climb and to some degree with several other sources of authority, including national and international bodies (e.g. BMC, MTA, IFMGA), company owners (e.g. climbing walls, outdoor professionals and equipment producers), and government agencies (e.g. AALA). The legacies of people like Gary Gibson or the Edwards clan show how controversial the anarchic approach can at times be (especially when the UK ethics are exported abroad), whilst the debacle surrounding the pathetic BMC 'rebranding exercise', consequent attempted coup by 'the old guard', and departure of one of the few visible people of colour in climbing from the BMC Presidency, shows the limits of supposedly representative bodies. Meanwhile, there are almost certainly debates to be had about the norms, standards and democracy within bodies offering qualifications, training and technical advice - which go far beyond the trite complaint that qualifications are 'dumbed down'. Work toward ever increasing standardisation and integration is going on behind the scenes within the professional climbing world, which rarely makes it into public debates, whilst tensions surrounding who is allowed to guide what or about fees and client ratios do occasionally spill out onto social media, UKC and even company websites. 

With regard to the inside/outside debate, I think you're off the mark and it confuses and dates your argument. You rightly celebrate the increasing diversity and inclusivity of contemporary climbing, but dismiss 'wall-bred' climbers - despite elsewhere praising John Syrett and praising Honnold in this very article. The fact is, indoor climbing is not only a great way into climbing, that helps drill climbing technique and basic safety, but is central to the increasing visibility, popularity and, above all, diversity of climbing. In fact, given that walls become centres for new climbing communities to meet and organise, they could well be used to increase dialogue and democracy within climbing.

Indoor climbing has, however, expanded the class of 'climbing professionals' and the regulation of climbing, as well as having created more opportunities for the pure commoditisation of climbing (from selling a 'climbing experience' to coaching to climbing products that are more about creating and profiting from climbing as a growing market). Whether this is entirely a problem, I don't know. At times, it seems to militate against the spirit of climbing as I understand it, as well as reproducing class divisions within climbing, as wealthier individuals from London turn up to their MTA course in their Tesla or trot off on regular guided alpine trips in Arc'teryx gear, whilst others content themselves with Lancashire quarries and an inherited trad rack. But it also, in creating jobs and opportunities for people in a decade of economic stagnation, leads to development within climbing (e.g. more and better facilities; climbing media; festivals and films), and perhaps, anyway, my understanding of climbing - which is probably more reliant on British romanticism than I'd like to admit - is too narrow and restrictive.

Perhaps the game of climbing is changing, but perhaps it needs to change? The important thing is that we find ways to invigorate community-control and democracy at a time when climbing is bigger and more regulated than ever.

If people want to learn indoors or even stay indoors rather than transfer to real rock that's fine. They are not hurting anyone and in fact may be helping by keeping numbers down on already overcrowded crags.  I think the indoor/outdoor debate only acquires any significance if or when there is a pressure to transfer indoor practices and safety standards to the outside world.

I have my own, admitedly quite illogical views on this. For example, someone higher up the thread has bemoaned retro-bolting on Yorkshire Limestone. As one of the old codgers referred to I am happy to see what were  largely-ignored crumbling  crags cleaned up and now attracting lots of users. However, when I go out on Yorkshire grit (mainly easy bouldering or soloing) I am appalled by the increasing number of  voices (mainly gibbering wall climbers getting a nasty shock from having to place gear)  saying places like Almscliffe should be bolted. Interestingly they are quite upfront about their reasons. They say most climbers now learn on walls and so do not possess trad racks or know how to place gear safely. Apparently to expect wall-trained climbers to learn trad skills is 'elitist' and old-fashioned.

Given the three options of a) buy some gear,  learn how to use it and become a trad climber,   b)  top rope or c) get drilling they prefer 'b' as the quickest, cheapest and safest  option for them which still lets them feel like 'real' climbers because they are leading not top roping. In effect, they say the crag should be adapted to their skill level rather than vice versa. I appreciate there are still plenty of people choosing option 'a' but it feels like only a matter of time.....

thanks. I wish you the best of luck with your planned article.

let me know how you get on.

I've never encountered anyone saying grit should be bolted, except as a joke. Is this really a widespread attitude? Certainly, the idea that trad climbing is elitist and old-fashioned is utterly dubious; but, convincing people of this means a modern approach - not endless carping about 'the yoof today' and the self-satisfied superiority barely concealed by some when they talk about how much more bold, self-reliant and exciting both they and climbing were in 'the good old days'. To his credit, Mick acknowledges many of the positives of climbing today, e.g. greater inclusivity and lower chances of killing yourself.

I feel more ambivalent about retrobolting Yorkshire limestone. On a route like Bonhomie (6a+), I do see both sides of the argument. It's either a tricky sandbag HVS by an important pioneer, hemmed in on either side by bolted routes, or a popular bolted jaunt on what is now basically a sports crag. I think building a community consensus is more important than abstract principle, either way.

I'm personally for the idea of doing more group work indoors, to avoid some of the impacts of taking instructed groups of novices out to scrape their way up crags in big boots on top ropes - a) because it's an experience that many of these novices will find more exciting; b) because it's easier for them to get into personal climbing through indoor walls, so it's more likely to become "their thing" rather than a novelty only done with school or scouts, etc.; and, finally, c) because top-roping indiscriminate lines in big boots as some sort of mandated and regimented "outdoor ed" bares little relation to my idea of trad climbing anyway.

Your examples are different to what I would have expected and makes me think that there are two different threads of discussion here: 1) the regulation of climbing areas due to misuse or overuse. This raises questions, as you allude to, about the ability of the climbing community to come to a consensus on ethics and act in such a way as to not attract attention/annoy external persons or organisations. 2) the regulation of climbing areas as a way of making money (permits?), which falls more into your earlier argument about commodification.

I'm sensing a theme of internal versus external pressures

I generally agree with most of the points in this article but gonna play devil's advocate a bit. Starting with this, in one of your replies, because it highlights one of my main issues with the article. In response to what is under threat:

I get a lot of joy from the purely physical side of climbing, as well as the side you're talking about. Even on a hard alpine climb, a great deal of the enjoyment is in overcoming the physical suffering, and this is a feeling which I can relate to other more conventional sports, even weight lifting. Why does one form of joy have more value than another? Sure, I might not remember the details of one particular fingerboard session, but the reward of overcoming a physical barrier is highly motivating and can imbue me with a sense of purpose for a time in much the same way as the desire to climb some choss fest at Gogarth or a new route in Alaska can. Personally I don't see one as being intrinsically more valuable than the other, and frankly I find it arrogant when someone suggests that this is the case. Participants of more traditional sports gain a great deal of joy and purpose from their activities. Why is ours better than theirs?

These sorts of articles always wind up with a hint of 'my way is better than your way', and while I appreciated the efforts in the first part of the article, I felt that towards the end it lacked enough explanation of why exactly the adventurous spirit is more intrinsically valuable than the desire to push oneself physically. Climbing has increased in popularity precisely because its sanitisation has meant that people who have no interest in adventure can enjoy the movement and physicality of it. I started as one of those people and then realised that I wanted to climb mountains, as a small percentage do, but the two are in no way mutually exclusive and I don't think that I am any better than the wall rats for having started trad climbing. If they are fulfilled in what they do then fine. I don't expect everyone to be fulfilled by the same things as me, and moreover I can relate to the satisfaction of the purely physical side. There are times when the last thing I want is adventure.

I agree with some of what you say but I also kind of get a sense of someone wanting things to stay just as they like them and not change. Culture changes over time and it may be that in 20 years that climbing will have evolved into a different game, one that you wouldn't have played if you were starting out today. That doesn't mean it is bad, it may mean that 10 times as many people enjoy modern climbing.

I also think there is a great culture and camararderie amongst people who boulder or sport climb, just as there is with people into trad and mountaineering. They are just different facets of climbing.

I'm with you on indoor speed climbing...whats that all about?

Interesting article,  see Matt Hoffmans battle with the uci over the gradual exclusion of a grass roots bmx organisation as the sport became an Olympic entity for reference

I guess you have to define 'widespread' really. It's certainly not something I hear every time I am out on the grit but it is heard often enough to register as a growing feeling. And let's face it, if your background is largely wall-based with very little outdoor experience what is the logic of limestone's OK to bolt but  grit's not or Lancs quarries yes but Trowbarrow no, Bram Crag  and Hodge Close are fine but not Raven Langdale etc etc?

I've been climbing for almost 55 years and have given some thought to this very matter and come to the conclusion that I would probably not be attracted to take up climbing now.  My problem is that the commoditisation (Is that a real word Mick? ) process has changed how climbing is presented.  Some of the consequences, better gear, more widespread information/knowledge etc. are positive but the overall impression I am left with is negative. I carry on climbing because to some extent I have isolated myself from many of these more recent developments and tend to ignore the stuff I have no interest in.  I mainly took up sport climbing because it offered me more unclimbed rock not because it meant I could push my physical limits.  XYZ climbs a 9c.  I don't care.  I've never heard of him and I will never reach that level so other than academic interest and an acknowledgement of the dedication, skill and strength required to reach that level deserves respect, I can't relate to that world. 

Al

I don't think I've ever actually met someone, including non climbers, who couldn't accept that it wasn't done on certain  rock types because natural protection was more readily available, and further more because that was the prevailing ethic

My apologies. Austria, Australia... clearly I'm losing the plot (or have lost it years ago)!

However an interesting point maybe from the link:

'It goes without saying that the more backers there are, the greater the chances of safeguarding the area’s future and consequently the global climbing community has been asked to add its weight in safeguarding this pristine environment by signing the petition.'

I'm never sure what weight we have. Luckily, in this case, maybe we did have weight, if the area was saved. And, if so, that's heartening.

Many thanks,

Mick

The logic is largely down to the added value each discipline brings in each case. Extremely few grit routes can't easily be top-roped to offer a safe climbing experience, whereas relatively few limestone routes are accessible from above to do so. On the other hand, unlike Grit, Peak limestone generally doesn't offer much by way of trad gear so the possibilities for having fun in relative safety are often quite limited.

It may not be an easy message to convey to newbies but the logic is clear and sound.

What if xyz climbs an E9 how is that any different? 

Says it all, Jim. Says it all.

Mick

Such a great article Mick, thanks. 

I can't help the desperate urge to want to read the original article, is there anywhere that I can read it online?  

Ah, Grampians. Yes, that one is still on-going. 

It's not. I wasn't making this a sport vs trad issue. It's more an "out of my league" issue.  In general my generation did not train we just climbed. Practicing moves and abseil inspections were frowned upon and even considered cheating. Some of us, and I would include myself, even took it up for that reason as well as the fact that it was not overtly competitive. The levels reached these days could not be achieved without training and have become very overtly competitive.

You may be confusing me with someone else.

Do you really think that though? As Mick very expertly outlined at the start of the article, the best and the worst in climbing readily mingle, compared to back in the day when there seemed to be a lot more elitism. I've very rarely met a top level climber who seemed competitive against anyone but themselves. Certainly they are in a minority. Competition climbers excluded of course. You seem to be equating high level performance with competition but there just doesn't seem to be a link in my experience.

I'd add that people who try to pretend that e7 headpoint is more impressive than e6 onsight are very much in the minority too, in response to your cheating comment

Like I said the high levels of today could not now be achieved simply by just climbing.  The fact that training is essential is in itself a manifestation of a more competitive environment.

Hi, many thanks for such an in-depth reply. I'll reply, as best I can. Unfortunately muffed things up first time and lost a load of text but will try again. (The first stuff was better - yeah right!)

The sheer amount of people who now climb - and where they come from - is exactly my point!  And, despite what you may think, I have considerable sympathy with them.

'The spirit of climbing is free choice, with underlying judgement. You might have a great day out; alternatively you might get killed.'  The elephant in the room is - you might get killed. Not only is this antithetical to gym climbing culture, it's also something highly unlikely to be mentioned by people selling 'adventure'.

What I wrote was: 'But we inhabit a world where (dumbed down) qualifications routinely mask incompetence.'  I stand by this.

Basic safety? You've got to be joking!  I'll walk you round Portland (hell, we can just walk round the Cuttings, if it's busy) and show you example, after example, after example of people utterly ignorant of basic safety. Virtually 100% of those people will have come into climbing via the indoors.

Climbing is constantly changing. For two decades you weren't allowed to use chalk in Ireland; then magically you were!  Bolts weren't allowed in Ireland, or on sea-cliffs, or in the Highlands; now they're appearing. (Please note: I'm not saying that, in my view, any of this stuff is bad.)

Utterly agree. That's why I thought I'd write an article...

Mick

That just isn't true though. I've done a lot of training purely because its enabled me to have bigger adventures,with literally no regard for any competitive or physical element. I've done other training for physical enjoyment, perhaps even at times competitive but the two aren't mutually exclusive. You're making a very big assumption and its demonstrably false

What that climbing is more competitive than it once was?  We will have to agree to disagree but unless you were around in the 60's I'm not sure that you are qualified to judge me on that score

Because I'm far from the mainstream, I didn't know this is already the case. But I would certainly have predicted that one day it would be the case.

Increasingly I see videos of climbers throwing in cams (rather than carefully placing them), effectively using them as a 'get out of jail card'. On the Right Unconquerable thread, I mentioned a video of some guy camming his way up Tippler Direct, in effect treating it as a sport route. It's not a sport route! But people want 'the E3' or 'the HVS' or whatever.

Using cams carelessly as surrogate bolts is also not a recipe for safety! 

Mick

Unfortunately not. It was in 'Climber', mid-90s. Can photocopy it and send it to you when I get back to the UK.

Mick

Also how far back are you going? Climbing has always had competition, arguably more than now. The first ascent of the Eiger,  Johnny Dawes vs Redhead, Fawcett vs Moffatt. Need I go on?

I thought it might be the Grampions (well, OK, I kind of forgot!) Am sorry it's still under threat. Would be good to get an update from Charlie Creese.

Mick

I was 'bemoaning' this retro-bolting (and I didn't call anyone an old codger). When someone (yourself?) began cleaning and bolting up large parts of Lower Gigg South I was fine with it - the place was as you say, largely ignored although crumbling only in parts. A lot of very good stuff was produced which I enjoyed at the time myself. What did start to alarm me was when the bolting started spreading onto good trad climbs such as City Limits (or so close as to make them almost pointless as trad). At Gigg North the area around The Ramp became so packed with straight-up sport climbs such that it became almost pointless to bother with it. What was once-upon-a-time an Austin classic is now virtually redundant. Looking at the UKC stats bears this out. Does anyone actually rock up to Gigg North now with actual runners? You are being a tad economical with the truth when you dismiss good, trad crags/sectors of crags as 'crumbling'. It's true, some of them were largely ignored but then so are many crags - I'll bet the Right and Left Wings of Malham are quiet as the grave much of the time. Smaller crags like Attermire and Twisleton are virtually deserted with tumbleweeds blowing past - maybe it's time for the drills to appear? I had my own experience with retro-bolting at Langcliffe Skyline when a few people decided to bolt good, well-protected trad routes on excellent rock that I'd been involved in the FA's. There were already sport routes on the blanker areas and it seemed like a good mix of both styles but then the 'old codgers' decided to grid bolt the lot without any concensus (other than among themselves I would imagine?).

Why are you surprised/appalled at this? When they go to formerly popular trad limestone crags they just encounter a complete sport venue. Or they just see a deserted crag awaiting the drill where it's safe enough to climb on and no route-finding skill is required at all.

Yes, given the examples set on many limestone crags in Yorkshire I suspect you are completely right.

Karl (also an 'old codger')

There's a terribly nice chap from Swanage. Oops, that's Scott, isn't it?

Mick

The assumption you're making is that people who train invariably do so for competitive reasons. And unless you are one of those people I'm unsure that you're unqualified to comment

I will give you the Eiger but I'm talking about more mainstream climbing not something politically charged and perhaps even motivated. My impression of the change in attitude in the UK was in the 70's.  Perhaps I'm just seeing it from personal experience but even my attitude changed somewhat back then. I became more ambitious and even more so with the advent of sport. A lot of this was down to improvements in gear I have to say. In the 60's most climbers could not afford to be ambitious you always had to have plenty in reserve. It really was a different world with different attitudes back then for most climbers and that is what I am talking about.  We were more like hill walkers who sometimes went vertical.

Fair enough. Like  you say I wasn't there so can't really comment but I just so rarely experience anything that could be called competition from even top level climbers that it feels absurd to say that modern climbing is somehow tainted by  competitive elements

Well they are certainly not training because they want to be worse climbers are they? They are training because they want to climb harder grades.  That's the first step on the road to competitiveness.  It is my perception, based on experience of being a climber since 1964 that climbing in general is more competitive. When I started grades were less important than surviving

I'm not saying it's tainted I'm just saying that I would not have found it as attractive a pastime to take up if I were starting out now. I took it up specifically because it was unlike any other activity in that regard.

Well I'm unbelievably nice but I moved away from Swanage in around 1979

They train because they find overcoming their limitations deeply rewarding. I know very few for whom grades are the primary motivating factor

Thanks for the reply! 

I guess the wider point is, it's all well and good for us to complain about trad climbing being supplanted by other "cozier" forms, but if we want trad climbing and its philosophy to be represented, then it's important that we dump some of the "attitude problem" (e.g. sulking, telling indoor climbers and boulderers they're all soft) and instead talk about why climbing on your own gear is not about climbing wet grass in moleskin trousers with only fuzzy slings for protection, but is actually this incredibly cutting-edge, exciting and rewarding form of climbing.

Fair enough I can understand that the counterculture element must have had a lot of appeal. I think it is still there in its way but definitely less so

Thinking about it perhaps it was me who became more competitive not climbing per se.

It's also very expensive to build up a trad rack which possibly puts a lot of indoor/sport climbers off doing it? I know this puts me off making a comeback (that and the b*ggered joints!).

I'm sure Swanage's loss is... somewhere else's gain!

Mick

The Womens' trad festivals seem to be doing a pretty good job of helping people dip their toes into something which can seem pretty intimidating.

Mick

What I wrote was, 'What's it [i.e. our climbing world] like today? Immeasurably better.'

I've seen many waves of change since 1966. I don't think I've resisted any of them.

Mick

Hi Karl,

Apologies. I did not re-read the entire thread before  writing my post and I bundled your comments on retro-bolting with Lemony's reference to the perpetrators being 'elder statesmen'. Well I have never placed a bolt in my life (I'd kill someone. I can scarcely put up a shelf, let alone something  a life may depend on.) but must plead guilty to clipping a few thousand over the years  and I am definitely an old codger.

I am appalled/surprised by the suggestions of bolts on grit simply because I have become accustomed over the years to the prevailing  ethic of where they can and can't be placed so to hear people saying that Almscliffe ought to be bolted is a bit disconcerting.

That said, if someone's planning to put half a dozen up Hairless Heart give me a bell so I can get it done before they get chopped

Thank you also for such an in-depth reply.

I don't make a distinction between the joy of topping out on a boulder or the joy of a successful redpoint or the joy of a scary trad lead - to give but three examples. They're all joy - derived from commitment. For instance, I spent most of yesterday afternoon trying to link sections in a graffiti-smeared tunnel. Just couldn't do one section. Tried again and again and again. Got tired, cold, mentally weary. Kept trying. Got closer and closer. Knew I was courting injury. Gave it one last try, latched the crucial crimp. I think you can guess what I felt! For me, adventure is uncertainty of outcome, where outcome matters (to the participant). And that outcome sure mattered to me!

Staggered off home wrecked and feel wrecked today. But guess where I'll be going tomorrow?

Mick

The situation in the UK must be very different from the US if the elder statesman are "driving" the shift to sport climbing. This is not to say many of the old codgers aren't enjoying the convenience and low-risk nature of that activity, but they certainly are not in general the agents of cultural change.  (The exceptions I know of transitioned well before they were old...)

I also think the cultural issues are more nuanced, and some of the responses attempt to create dichotomies where they don't exist and weren't actually claimed.  I don't want to commit the sin of suggesting my personal views, those of a very old codger, are somehow characteristic of this or that larger group.  So speaking personally, I think the cultural issues revolve around how to preserve the various genres in peaceful coexistence.  I don't think anyone in the world has managed this better than the UK, and yet even there Royal Robbins' quip that "sport climbing is the child that wants to eat its mother" has relevance, and the source of that relevance is the pressure from a certain demographic---yes, raised on sport and gym climbing---that wants to promote the norms of those activities to trad climbing contexts where those norms would undermine the very nature of the enterprise. 

So it isn't old traddies on souless bolted quarry clip-ups that is driving anything.  Those folks are just enjoying a new aspect of what has come to pass.  The seniors aren't as a rule lobbying for bolted belays and/or rappel highways or for improved protection on the trad routes they may have eschewed in their golden years. It is (almost inevitably) a certain part of a younger generation that find themselves, without the relevant experience or apprenticeship, on trad climbs that seem to them to be overly daunting, and wish for experiences in line with the rest of their training.  It isn't a question of "blaming" gym and sport climbing for this, but is nonetheless a fact of contemporary climbing life. 

I think it worth noting that sport climbing has introduced into the climbing world an entirely new character---the developer.  The developer creates routes, modifying the natural scene in the process.  There really isn't anything analogous to this in the traditional contexts, even if the odd boulder or flake was occasionally trundled.  As a rule, developers are a public-spirited lot who invest huge amounts of time, effort, and money into their work. But something seems to happen to a few developers; they appoint themselves arbiters of public safety and enjoyment and carry on with a personal vision of appropriateness that is heedless of established norms.  Once the bolts are in, the pressures to leave them there are substantial, as removal is difficult and can leave ugly scars, so the developer has a huge asymmetric advantage they are only too willing to leverage.

The changes in climbing culture involve the proliferation of genres under a big tent.  The challenge is how to maintain the rich diversity of these activities, rather than allowing various pressures, however they arise, to homogenize the experience and make it all one thing.

Gosh, Mick, you certainly know how to pull on those emotional strings. I started off all warm and fuzzy and degenerated into near-despair by the end! 

Excellent article and resonates with so many other areas where the practitioners failed to regulate themselves and so "others" stepped in... (I'm talking abour medicien here!) 

[edited to add a second thought]

The problem in climbing is not of course "regulation" as it is an inherently anarchic activity where the penalty for mistakes is rather severe, it is that the plethora of people coming out of a regulated environment (indoor walls) expect the same level of safety and regulation outside. So you end up with needing regulation (to stop novices running over the cliff) while at the same not wanting regulation so as to preserve the anarchy. 

Not an original second thought, by any means. And thanks for writing a thought-provoking piece. 

I wonder what Sport Climbing Barbie would have to say. So far she seems to be keeping quiet.

Trad climbing Ken will be along in a minute......

Firstly, great opening paragraph for a thought provoking article, Mick! 

However, I think Lemony raises a valid point. It wasn’t some nefarious character in a suit that begin the commoditisation of climbing. 

Ironically, that began with some of your contemporaries, Doug Tompkins (TNF, ’66) Yvonne Chouinard  ( Chouinard Equip, ’57, Patagonia, ’70) Mike Pfotenhauer (Osprey, ’74), Peter Hutchinson  (Mountain Equipment, ’61), Rab Carrington (Rab, ‘81) to name a few. These business’s were successful because there was an existing market for their products. 

For a while that market grew, fed by similar misfits and outsiders attracted by the aura of antisocial, anti-establishment adventurous ‘outlaws’. It was only a matter of time before tipping point was reached. Humanity has some weird affinity with the ‘outlaw’ trope, the trickster archetype. Lucifer Hermes, Prometheus, Loki, Coyote,  Anansi, The Monkey King et al, those that broke ‘the rules’ or defied other gods. And rightly so, because the common thread is that they questioned established orthodoxy!*

And who knows, Mick, perhaps some of your writing contributed to this commoditisation by adding to the antiauthoritarian image that contributed to climbing being perceived as a cool past time?

I do tend to agree with you that the nebulous ‘spirit of climbing’ is under threat, even if we might not agree on what that is, exactly. I do think that as climbing is now defined as a sport, the risk of governance and regulation has increased and that should be resisted. *What ever else the spirit of climbing might be, it should remain antiauthoritarian, it should serve as reminder to question everything!

Well Trad climbing Ken has denounced the whole business has a complete aid extravaganza, while Sport Climbing Barbie has sweetly pointed out that, if only I'd done some bouldering, the aid wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

Sport Climbing Barbie has asked me to point out that there's a special offer on at her new bouldering gym - reduced price subscriptions for a limited period only.

Mick

Hi Peter, Many thanks indeed and sorry to be such a prophet of doom. Hopefully the doom won't happen and this is just a false alarm. But I'd rather risk a false alarm than not.

I don't have a problem with limited regulation, as long as it's carefully considered and not blind or silly. (Ideally it would be combined with education.) For instance, in the mid-70s, there was a regulation at the Bradford uni wall that you couldn't climb unroped (there were ropes for toproping but not leading) with your feet above a red line. In those days, there was absolutely no matting. You either climbed down or jumped down (or fell down!)  The concrete floor was hard. I can testify to that.

Stevie Haston was always getting told off for soloing above the line. Eventually he conceived a cunning wheeze whereby he would tie on to one of the ropes running over a rail at the top and climb where he wanted. The relieved authorities were entirely happy with this - and so was Stevie. He was following the regulation; he was roped up. However, as he wasn't being belayed, the rope was of somewhat academic relevance...

Mick

Many thanks for your comments. I don't have the slightest problem with people making money out of climbing. I know loads of people who earn their living taking people climbing. Quite rightly, they get paid for it. In nearly every case, they love climbing and the outdoors. They don't see climbing simply as an 'industry'.

But there are other organisations who, it seems, do view climbing - and related outdoor activities - simply as an industry. The production lines of bored kids being taken abseiling, so the school can tick a box. The production lines of squaddies flailing around on polished limestone, so another tick can be made.

In recent years, we've seen the inexorable rise of coasteering an an 'adventure activity' and an 'extreme sport'. There's little gear needed (wetsuits) and little skill generally (note: generally, not always!) needed. That's an attractive combination for a provider.

There's a particular estate near me which was getting overrun with production lines of coasteering clients. One day I met an old climbing partner who was on his third consecutive 'shift' (his words) of clients. He'd been working about 15 hours and wasn't in a fit state, in my view, either to work or drive home. He was probably getting minimum wage and needed the money. Since then, thankfully he's got a job where he can utilise his very considerable talents.

One day another climbing partner got a phone call from someone running these events at this locality. The provider wanted to subcontact the work to my mate (at the last minute!) Could he do the work for a pittance (the provider was charging the clients several thousand pounds). Oh, and could he provide his own insurance? My mate didn't need the money and told aforesaid provider to get stuffed.

Eventually the estate had to call in these providers and point out the the place was getting overrun. The decent providers (there were some) totally accepted the situation; I'm told others simply saw a stipulation for reduced numbers as their income getting cut.

Contrast with Chouinard decimating his product range by refusing to produce any more of his excellent pitons because of concerns about peg scarred cracks in Yosemite and moving across to produce more enviromentally friendly nuts (which might not have been accepted).

Contrast with Tompkins and Chouinard using some of the profits of Patagonia to buy up parts of Patagonia and prevent them being trashed.

You can make money from climbing without commoditising. It's a balance.

Mick

It is and it isn't. When you start out, you're almost invariably with friends who do have the gear or with a club, some of which even have gear to lend (e.g. uni clubs). If you make the plunge, there's not a lot of gear needed for low-level climbs (i.e. you can get away without cams for a good while); and even if you do buy gear, it's usually less expensive than, say, buying a mountain bike or a kayak, and it lasts a long time. There are always second-hand options, too, for shoes and hardware. Travel is probably a bigger potential cost.

When I started out, I'd borrow gear from friends and any shiny new gear I bought on my meagre wages was a guilty pleasure, with various deals agonised over for days.

Thanks for the article Mick. All good points worth raising every now and then. One aspect that isnt mentioned is how is guiding different to the other forms of commodification? Its a prickly subject, but examples like the Cuillin Ridge Light.tm seem to mirror many of the points you make in the article. Id agree the teaching aspects and passion for the outdoors in most guide companies differs from other more corporate areas, but they are subject to the same market needs to commoditize, market and sell. It is the nature of the beast, but knowing its nature can help in tempering it. I think articles like these steer us on a good course still and I hope voices like yours and rgolds continue to be heard. 

First up, to repeat what others have said I really enjoyed reading this article and it resonated with me.

I haven't read all the other comments but I have drawn some comparisons from the other sport I'm actively involved in, sailing.

I was recently on a 1st aid course and we had a long discussion about head injuries, delayed concussion and duty of care. There was a train of thought that if as a race officer (the person in charge of organising racing for the day) you knew a person took a hit to the head the previous day you should ban them from competing the following day. The logic being that you have a duty of care to them.

This is the same slippery slope that the author is warning of in climbing of regulation and a passing of personal responsibility to organising authorities. Sailing, like climbing has a lot of "types of sailing" cruising on the Windermere, local club racing every weekend, elite racing and big ocean crossing/racing. We also have a similar history of self reliance, although local clubs will organise safety boats, this is more like helping each other out than an organised authority. The RNLI work on the same principle as the MRT, "we encourage people to take to the water, we will offer advice but we will not stop anyone starting their own adventure and we will do what we can to help if it goes wrong.

Sailing's defence against the risks proposed in this article is fortunately written into the fundamental rules of the sport. Rule 4: DECISION TO RACE The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. 

So even in a sport that has had many years in the 5 ring circus and has some serious money flying around it we still need to guard against this kind of thinking. If the world of regulation and deferred responsibility gets a foot hold it will kill local amateur sailing. If I, as a qualified (volunteer) race officer, suddenly becomes responsible and therefore liable for the safety of every boat competing it will not be possible to support the sport in a voluntary way. I will continue to offer support and advice as I feel it is necessary and provide a racing environment that is safe so more people feel they are able to take the decision to join the racing and increase participation in the sport.

Has that ever been tested? It would seem fairly extraordinary to me if an event organiser were able to abdicate all duty of care for someone who's judgement they have good reason to feel is compromised based on a disclaimer.

I great reply, and I was about to shoot from the hip comment on the above, luckily I noticed the word ...A FEW... (edited to be in capital letters above) .

Yes, it seems to unfortunately happen. Some seems to loose focus and take it too far. Luckily the majority of developers seem to walk the fine line and follow the general consensus. And also luckily the community often lashes out, when people step over it. Problem is that everyone views their ideal to being the consensus . This is especially true where there is a long tradition of climbing (UK , US), and also large climbing populace. And actually the bolt wars ongoing now (and especially a tad earlier) are a great reminder of this.

I have done some development, be it brushing a new boulder, or bolting a new mixed route , or climbing a new trad line. So I like to think that I'm representing everyone equally (see, I think that I'm representing the consensus), I try to take numerous things into account. A good example are two winter (so mixed) climbing crags I've developed, they are less than 500m apart. One is pretty much all trad (no fixed gear, bar a few pins and stuck wires), not the safest form of climbing as some of the gear is pretty shite to be honest and the rock is also prone to breaking. But then again, even punters like myself have managed to open said lines, often ground-up and onsight... The other crag is a bit more unforgiving, while the lines there follow crags, almost all of the lines start with a roof and there aren't many holds outside the cracks. So I made the judgement call to bolt the lines, and I even bolted them to be really safe/beginner friendly. The logic was rather simple, hard start on crap rock that can break and not a lot of gear placements (some have none, and the rock is still shite), followed by often sustained climbing utilizing mainly/only the cracks. Could these be climbed with gear, yes. Would there be a good likelyhood that if you mess up the start or even higher up, you'd hurt yer self.... why yes, simply 'cause falling from the start with tools and crampons is not smart, especially cratering on yer back onto rocks. And once higher the likelihood of accidentally kicking out your gear is high since the only available hold is the same crack that has the gear. And to top this, these routes are short, so even one blown gear means that the ground fall is certainly possibly. The final decision point, was that pretty much all the known bolted mixed stuff,  was either harder and/or bolted in a non beginner friendly way (plus these were not really published, where the climbs even were).

Now some might have disagreed with me (some did), but I did a lot of reasoning and discussions before I made the decisions (to keep the other crag "free of bolts" and then fully bolt & publish the other crag). Oddly enough, didn't get much shite for those decisions, only some grumby words from a few grumbies. But I have received a lot of positive feedback.

What ties this lengthy reply to the article... is that we need to be careful with the "consensus"... as it will evolve as time goes, so also remembering the heritage and honoring it is important. Also we need to remember that diversity is the name of the game, it's what makes this climbing so much fun and brings interesting persons into it and to the discussions (even if you don't agree with them).


Oh, another thing I noted in the replies (prolly not by rgold, or maybe it was), was the fact that only young or old people are the ones bolting stuff now. For that, we need to first define who is old, and who is young? Does old mean 60+ and young less than 30 or what?

That being said, I think that to an extent majority of the developers tend to be in the middle or old category... especially if talking about new routes (trad or sport). I haven't seen any sub 20 "kids" bolting new stuff (or heck, cleaning a new trad route), they tend to be more focused on performing, ticking etc. Sure there are lads that have done the FAs, but in those cases the bolts have already been there. Once time goes by, you either run out of new stuff to climb -> you start to be a developer... or you loose the "edge" and you feel like you wish to give to the community. This is certainly true where I live, but from the looks of it also elsewhere (e.g. in Yurp, the Remy bro's have their name in quite a few routes and the are getting close to the "old" branch). Boulders tend to be the exception as I think majority of the stuff opened up are by the young & middle "branches", simply due to the fact that bouldering tends to be popular with younger crow (also easier to approach and opening up new stuff takes less equipment & effort when compared to routes, or heck multipitch stuff).

A wonderful article. One of the best things I've read, not just on UKC, but, I think ever, about climbing. Written by someone who really understands their subject from long experience (unlike certain other stuff on here recently!). And, like all great writing, it articulates perfectly thoughts I barely knew I had half formed myself.

"For mass consumption, you package things. To package things, you reduce them to commodities. To reduce them to commodities, you dumb them down to the lowest common denominator" - that needs quoting in the Cuillin light Thread!

And, of course, I love the reservations about climbers as "athletes"........

I'm not convinced that this is the fundamental reason. Is it not more that gritstone has a certain aesthetic in its climbing, and in its texture, form and environment which limestone largely lacks and so there is a feeling that bolting it would be a desecration in a way thet bolting limestone is not? No clear logic obviously.......

Very well written Mick, and well argued. I enjoyed reading this, thank you.  

My first reaction was: nail on the head. On Radio 4 the other day they were talking about climbing and the olympics and said there were 60,000 new entrants into the sport in the UK in the last year. SIXTY THOUSAND! And they emphasised indoor bouldering as an easy way to get into climbing.

I live in London, go to at least 4 of the London walls regularly, and yes, they are a lot busier than they used to be.  But having read some comments and thought about it some more i'd say that despite the increase in popularity of indoor climbing - particularly bouldering only centres - I'm not sure how much has really changed.

I'm a member of a London based mountaineering club, and it's fair to say we are seeing more people wanting to join us on our trips. However, it's still a relatively small proportion of them who make the transition to becoming life-long adventure trad climbers, and by that I mean those who become competent and get enjoyment from being self-reliant on mountain or sea cliffs or alpine climbing. 

I'm confident in saying that those who do 'love it' have the same experience of, and relationship to climbing that you are saying we need to seek to preserve. They are passionate , aware of its ethics and history, and respectful of the natural environment.  i.e. the spirit of UK climbing is alive and well. The crags don't seem much different now than they were 20 years ago - about as busy and each maintaining its prevailing ethics regards development. 

Yes, we have to be complacent that the aspects of climbing that are special to some people are not lost, and it seems to me we've managed that pretty well so far. However, shouldn't there be more acknowledgement that the rising 'brand' of indoor climbing is worthwhile and special to it's proponents? So what if you're passionate about training plans, comps, and wear brightly-coloured trousers? So what if your community is around an indoor wall and not the crags? It's just two different aspects of a sport that can, and are, coexisting (spoken as someone with a foot firmly in both camps).

Never been a case that has made it to court to be tested there, but the fact the no ambulance chasers have managed to get it to that stage gives me reassurance. There have been cases of commercial training centres getting a thorough going over by the HSE, but that is a very different relationship between customer and client.

The club sailing is more like you inviting a few friends on a scramble and them taking the decision to join you for the day.

In the same way that every year a few unfortunate folk die doing marathons or similar events but I've not heard of a case of any organisers being in trouble. Unlike the army which seems to be getting into hot water over cases of death of soilders doing big days over the Brecon beacons, as they are in a employer/employee relationship and therefore do have a duty of care, although they are exempt from the  health and safety at work act.

Not sure that's a fair comparison as they haven't identified a specific risk in advance. I reckon if a marathon organiser saw you suffering a heart attack one day and turning up on the start line the next, they might well have words...

Lots to get your teeth into Mick and you have a nice dichotomy of as the world gets worse climbing culture gets better - but I think some of your assumptions are questionable at least. Yes, in the 1990s there was a lot of end-of-history globalisation-is-giving-us-one-global-culture talk, but there were theorists who questioned that then, and really it turned out to be a much more complicated picture of resistance and adaptation actually leading to arguably some cultures being reinforced and reinvigorated. 

You state now "Clearly our world is getting environmentally trashed at an alarming rate. In the social sphere, in areas such as education, standards have diminished beyond belief. Politics, certainly in the UK, have become laughable at best, tragic at worst. 40 years of neoliberalism have created toxic organisations and dreadful working conditions for most of the populace." I think this is a generalisation to an extent that it isn't really accurate. Environmental damage is terrible, we are doing somethings better now than a generation ago but they are probably all cancelled out by economic growth in developing countries. But what does it mean education standards have dropped beyond belief? More children are in schools globally than ever before in actual terms and in percentage terms. In the UK children have to stay in education longer than ever before and the highest percentage ever go on to university. Of course it could be better but it's not the 50s where 20% got into grammar schools and a top level education and the other 80% languished in under resourced secondary moderns. Kids now are less racist, less homophobic, more accepting of difference than in the past - maybe the improvements in climbing culture are just a reflection of increased tolerance and liberal views in the wider culture? Neoliberalism since 79 and problems of British politics now are massive issues - but probably also interconnected. Populists backlashes can easily be seen as a probably misguided resistance to neoliberalism, but for some people its a form of hope. Working conditions aren't great for far too many, although from where I'm sat now 30 years ago I would have been able to see three or four pits. Again I don't think its clear if more people work in poor conditions than 30 or 40 years ago.

Enjoyable read as always from you Mick Ward, very refreshing and inspiring in this subservient day and age to see an old skooler question the suits. 

Ps. Have you considered commodifying it 🙂

For me the important thing is why should I take that decision and not them, we're not talking about someone showing obvious symptoms who is clearly a risk to them and others (in the same way someone who is still drunk from the night before).

I can offer advice I can suggest they are taking as additional risk but if they choose to take to the water I have no authority as a race officer to stop them. There's no requirement to have any medical/first aid training in order to run racing, the vast majority of race officers have no qualifications at all, I do because I run bigger, more complicated events or where the stakes for the competitors may be higher.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Very good indeed......but as you allude to, I fear you are right

Great article Mick. You have very eloquently put into words my exact feelings, thoughts and fears far better than I ever could.

Al

With removable beard.

She’s currently in self isolation.

Lovely, well thought out article. Thank you.

Thinking of what climbing in the trad sense can give you, it has saved my life a couple of times, mainly avoiding suicidal kangaroos when I'm doing 100kph in a car; what you learn about gear placement helps when you have to decide in 2 seconds the best way to avoid death. Stay calm, review options, decide early, don't faff about.

And yes, speed climbing is weird..why not speed golf or speed archery?

At last - a well written opinion article that is actually about climbing. Well done Mick!

I cannot agree that there was elitism and violence in the seventies. I hung out with some very good climbers then and it didn't feel they were being elitist. We did have a cream team and the bumblies but we generally all mucked in together. 

And violence? never saw any evidence of that. Is this coming from the Don Whillans stories?

the punchline being, "so I hit him" . Or false memories? 

Hi, apologies, somehow missed your post (need to try harder to keep up!) Will try to reply to your points, as best I can.

I was entirely unaware of such talk. When I wrote the preceding article, I'd never been on the internet, for instance. I'm sure some cultures and subcultures have been reinforced (would certainly like this to be the case) but surely generally globalisation has massively continued, aided, in large part, by the internet?

I remember outrage from early proponents of the world wide web about it being used for commercial purposes. I'd imagine any young person today would shake their head and think, "Bonkers!" Our personal commercial worlds have gone online in a way that, 25 years ago, we could never imagine. When was the last time that you or I put a cheque in the post? I don't have a cheque book any longer.

My schooling occurred in the 50s and 60s. I completely disagree with the social divisiveness of the Eleven Plus exam, with its winners and losers, the latter being thrown on the scrap heap, as it were. Totally wrong. Interestingly every self-made millionaire I've ever met from that era failed the Eleven Plus. But, of course, they succeeded in spite of the system - not because of it.

Now the pendulum has swung far in the other direction. We live in a world where if you haven't got a degree - or, increasingly, a Masters - you're some kind of reject. Again, utterly wrong, in my view.

When I got my degree, it was virtually unheard of to get a First. Very rare to get a 2.1. Nowadays they've become the norm. Have students become better - or have standards dropped?  I believe it's the latter. But there will loads more people on here far more informed, who can confirm or refute.

There was someone who used to do some lovely posts on here. He came from a background with little aspiration, a series of dead-end jobs, then somehow he got into education (night school?), went to Oxford, got a degree, became a lecturer. Massively bright, super-talented, highly motivated guy.

A while back, he mentioned that he'd marked 300 essays. I asked him how many were any good. He said, "None!"  And this isn't just a blip. In his world, it's normal. Many of his students seem barely literate, with little understanding of their subjects.

I remember Angela Faller remarking that education in the UK took a wrong turn when, "It went from students competing for courses to courses competing for students." 

I could go on - but won't!

Yes, thank goodness.

Would think these are contributory factors. But I suspect the single most positive factor in climbing culture is the growth in numbers of female climbers. And climbing becoming more middle-class.

From what I can see, neoliberalism has poisoned the UK and probably the world. I also think the growth of 'professional politicians' is a bad thing. Nowadays you start as an intern at Westminster or somewhere near by. (And you probably get the job via connections.) You don't know what it's like to work in a shitty factory or in a hospital where people are dying on you. Your bubble is Westminster. Yet, if you are successful, you will end up making decisions which will massively affect the lives of those people in those factories and those hospitals.

I had big problems with paternalistic organisations (you had to toe the party line) but at least management tended to feel some responsibility for the welfare of the workforce. Those organisations have pretty much gone. Nowadays we seem to have toxic organisations, where people are simply commodities. For instance, bullying appears to be rife.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long. But at least you got some kind of a reply!

Mick

Mmm... I don't think I've got false memories. For instance, did you drink in climbers' pubs in Ambleside in the '70s?

No elitism? You're joking!  I can think of lots of cases where top climbers looked straight through people whom they knew, whom they considered lesser beings. Wouldn't acknowledge their presence.

For several years, I wouldn't go into climbing shops because the characters working there were so snotty towards lesser beings (even though I could climb harder than most of them). Used to ask mates to buy my stuff for me.

If you had experiences which were only good - then I'm happy for you.

Mick

You are so right on ALL the points you make here. Just to take one, on grade inflation and First Class degrees being much more readily awarded. In the Philosophy department at the University College Cardiff (where I was), in the period 1965-72 only 2% of the graduates were awarded First Class Honours degrees. Now, in most UK universities, it's an absurd 30-40 per cent, and in some, far higher. The same with A level grades. My history master, when I went back to a school reunion of some kind years later, told me quite bluntly about it. Comparing his current year with our year (back in 68), he said that a dozen of the students had got grade As, when in his opinion only one was of that calibre.

A fantastic article and a lot of food for thought.

One thing that concerns me however is Coca Cola being singled out as a red flag.

I know you mentioned Cliff Bar and Red Bull too, but there are dozens of others Adidas' sponsorship of climbers (and not just via 5.10, they also Sponsor Kevin Jorgenson, Shauna Coxey, Sasha DiGiulian etc).  I know they bought 5.10 a few years back but what climbing pedigree do Adidas have?  

Red Bull?  I know they've aggressively marketed themselves through their sponsorship of "hi octane" adrenaline sports but the fact that they've done doesn't really mask the fact for me that their product is utter shit which is terrible for you...

Alex Honnold did a wrist watch advert.  Doesn't even wear a watch...

A Climber featuring on a Honda Civic advert.  A car.  That runs on petrol.  That burns and f*cks our world. That's made by a multinational corporation, that has precisely f*ck all to do with climbing. 

I could go on, but I'll not....

All of this went by without a whisper.  Why?

But then when coke (and I have no dog in this race, I very rarely drink the stuff) decide they want a slice of climber pie everyone's up in arms...

This isn't a pop at you Mick, this is a fantastic article and it's just this kind of article I visit this site to read, but I'm genuinely interested why we let some of this stuff into our world without a problem but then others not. 

Is it because of who they sponsored?  Would our response have been different if it had been some BMC supported team member? How they did it?  Why they did it?  

Like I say, genuinely interested in asking questions of myself and ourselves - I'm not criticising anybody mentioned in the article or in this post (Apart from Red Bull.  It's foul.). 

Personally I say take the big corporations money, pros in our sport get f*ck all money compared to others and need to make money any way they can.  Just let's not get all high and mighty when one of us takes money from one that we would not have done.

I can't answer for Mick obviously, but from my perspective - Coke is all about actively harming people, it might as well be a tobacco company.

Whereas Adidas may not have any roots in climbing culture, but they're a reputable sports equipment company making perfectly good sports equipment. Not the same thing at all.

I think it was Barclays Bank that sponsored the south west face of Everest expedition in 1975. Big name sponsorship frame non climbing companies isn't a particularly new thing!

I hear what you're saying and tend to agree with the points you make, but this doesn't explain why Coke gets the red flag and Red Bull is given a free pass?  

Coke only got a red flag from me (rightly or wrongly) on the basis that they were an utterly mainstream company. I thought that if such a mainstream company deemed climbing worthy of sponsorship, that must have been a sign that climbing was seen as more significant than ever previously. (They'll have done a hell of a lot of research, put up one pursuit, e.g. skateboarding, surfing, parkour, mixed martial arts, etc against another.) Red Bull had kind of featured an edgy, extreme sport brand (God, I feel nauseous writing this) so I could see why they were interested in climbing. Consequently their interest  didn't seem quite as strong evidence.  My concern is that, if climbing is deemed as significant, then it becomes ripe game for a raft of exploiters.

I'm not making any distinction in kind between Coke and Red Bull. I've only drunk Coke a few times in my life; the last time would have been decades ago. Have never drunk Red Bull. Lots of people say that neither product is good for you and I'm certainly not arguing.

Mick

I think Coke is possibly only second in line to McDonald's when it comes to the biggest symbols of capitalism and mass consumption, so perhaps that's why it provoked more of a response in the community, coupled with Red Bull's already long association with action sports as you say. Around the time that Ashima got sponsored there was also a lot of media coverage about their use of unrecyclable plastic: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/coca-cola-plastic-bottles-...

I suspect part of our Coca-Cola response was because Ashima was so young at the time. Consequently a lot of us would have naturally seen warning flags about it possibly being an unhealthy "big corporation" v "exploited kid" relationship - it might be a very healthy relationship for all we know. This would have been heightened because it happened around the time that a lot of child sex-abuse cases were coming to light where the exploitation was from people in supposedly large respectable organisations.

The first mainsteam advert featuring climbing that I can remember was a Ford Escort (pre Focus so ages ago) with a rope "tied" round it for abseiling down by one of our (UK) known (i.e. amongst the best at the time) female climbers - can't remember who. Think it was somewhere near Gogarth but not sure - can't find the image. Anyway, I don't remember anybody making a fuss at the time.

"do you climb real rock?". That was a serious question put to me some years ago whilst at a local indoor wall. At that point I realised that there was a new generation of people with a  completely different view of what climbing was all about. Brands like North Face and Berghaus became streetwise fashion statements, creating huge retail empires for the owners of these brands. Fortunately, People like Yvon Chouinard who set up Patagonia, used this unexpected power for good, creating 1 % for the planet.

I think that using climbing as a tool of education has also changed the ethos. To use it for such has required masses of regulation setting out a system of certification and controls designed to mitigate risk, with the unintended consequence that there is now a workforce specialising in climbing. All of this means that non-climbers have begun to have an influential stake in a sport that fifty years ago was completely free from the trappings of control. The ethos of what it means to be a climber has changed, is changing, its inevitable, but we need to fight to keep the flame alight. The right to risk your life in a way of your choosing without others controlling how you go about it.

BTW - I saw a youtube video last night that had been linked on this facebook group I joined and have become fascinated with because it's like this utterly different climbing culture to what I know, despite having a feeling it's out there (predominantly southern, wall-based, many people planning or only just making the transition to "outside", almost solely sport). The video is part of a number by a nice-seeming young Brummie couple who went to Curbar for their first time "climbing" (I think they are just bouldering) on "real rock". Their channel is called something like "just two climbers", and seems based on going to a bouldering wall.  I don't live far from Curbar and despite being a pitifully bad boulderer have managed the problems they were trying. To be honest its ten minutes of not much happening - trying to work out how to use footholds that aren't pink and sticking out from a flat surface I guess. They seemed to have a lot of fun, but not do a huge amount. I sort of felt like leaving a comment that if they went to Curbar again I'd be happy to show them some of the other easy problems I can do, then they can come for a cup of tea at mine after! But it's interesting that people are putting decently put together YouTube clips of things like that and just trying problems at a bouldering wall! I guess that's climbing for them, but its fascinating how differently others can see (and present) climbing from how I, or you, do. Different worlds and all that.

I guess YouTube culture fascinates and bemuses me as well, but maybe that's a result of both having teenagers at home and teaching lots more of them all day!

Really enjoyed that and you make some excellent points.

I've only really climbed indoors but I've done some scrambling but importantly for my frame of reference, I've done a lot of mountain walking and backpacking when younger and we took it seriously.  We did need to look after ourselves, be able to navigate etc as this was pre-mobile phones and GPS, and we were out for days at a time.

It instilled in me a life long self reliance and self confidence that I try to instil in my children as they grow up.

I couldn't say if education standards have dropped. Whats the measure? There isn't one that we can rely on. Education has changed certainly but don't conflate government policy (bad in my view atm ) with what teachers do in the classroom (varied but hearts usually in the right place). If you are going on gut instinct that's ok but say so. I also don't think people 'lose' cultures - new ones or hybrids take their place. We may not like those new ones but they are still there. There is no culture vacuum. You might be talking about indigenous cultures? Again its a complex issue to say definitively what 'indigenous' means.

I completely agree with the idea that self sufficiency is the key issue when engaging with mountains and that is why rock climbing outdoors without bolts, using your own ingenuity to protect yourself is what I would regard as the ultimate in self sufficiency. Grades don't matter at all - what matters is how (the style in which perhaps?) you enjoy (and survive) your encounter with a mountain. 

Thanks for your reply, I guess my thinking is that fundamentally coke and Red Bull are both huge multi national corporations (albeit coke is bigger) that exist in order to sell us caffeinated sugary drinks. 

The big difference between them is how they market themselves.  Being a (relatively) young company Red Bull have aligned themselves with "extreme" sports whereas coke have a more traditional marketing approach. 

I think this has created the potential (just potential, I'm not leveling this at you or anyone else) for hypocrisy as we as an body of people accept one corporation whilst rejecting another that is fundamentally the same just because one has marketed itself to us more effectively.  We're better than that. 

If big corporations want into our sport they'll get in regardless of whether coke or any other company has been in first.  They see us as a big enough market then they can afford to pay the entrance fee ten times over.  It's numbers and disposable income that attracts them, not coke.

On the subject of commodotisation of climbing generally. I've seen this all before with skateboarding.  In the 90's we all wore skater owned shoes and clothes, Nike had a go at making a skate shoe and everyone thought it was a total joke.  Eventually Nike decided the wanted in.  Properly.  They launched Nike SB, splashed the cash bigtime, got on board the best pros, they got in.  Properly.

Pop down your local skatepark you'll see 90% of the skaters there wearing Nike/Adidas.  That would have been 0% in 2000.

I'd certainly agree with you on the point about Coke & McDonalds!

Interestingly Coke are a Tokyo 2020 main sponsor, as are some other companies with questionable ethics (Atos, for a start).  I'm on board with climbing being an Olympic Sport but how do we feel about the partnering that this gets us involved with? 

(This bit is more aimed at the thread than as a reply to you Natalie!) The coke/red bull question is an interesting debate.  But nobody has picked up on any of the others we have mentioned (Honda, Ford etc). Why is this?  Is is because there's some easy distinctions that can be made between the two to justify our stance, whereas these aren't present for the others?  Do we just turn a blind eye?  I'll stop here, with all these questions I'm starting to sound like a certain writer on this site.  Or am !?

Yes !

let us keep it as

the games climbers play

rather than

the games that play

climbers

!

It's difficult to see if educational standards have dropped or exams have become easier but what is certain is that exam grades have become less useful.

We (as a society) have lost sight of what exam grades are for. They are there to differentiate between people of differing abilities. So "in the old days", when grade A A-levels and 1st class degrees were rare, you really knew who were the best. I think our neoliberal society has allowed the "everyone's a winner" attitude to increase the proportion getting top grades, thereby making them less useful as a tool to differentiate. They have become instead merely a minimum standard hurdle to at least meet.

P.S. I have tried to ignore the "are exams a good way to measure ability, etc" argument in the above but I do realise that it's out there. The only thing exams really show you is who is best at taking exams. The correlation to any other ability you might want to know about is arguable.

I find this really interesting. When I wrote the article, about a year ago, I'd kind of hoped that people might come forward with relevant experiences of other 'soulful' activities - maybe surfing, skateboarding, parkour, martial arts? 

I remember reading about someone who wanted to do parkour/freerunning (sorry, if I'm using the wrong term - I don't know the first thing about it!) on a major building in London. The occupying company turned them down outright. But somewhere along the line, another company went for it. And apparently (if I remember correctly) suddenly there were 30+ major companies all giving it, "Me too! Me too!!" Did they care about parkour? Of course not. They just wanted to be associated with something which was deemed 'cool' or 'edgy' or whatever the contemporary term is. Once that's no longer deemed cool or edgy, you move on to the next activity. But maybe you're trashing things as you go?

It's the 'Eventually Nike decided they wanted in.  Properly.' that scares the hell out of me - that a few really big players, with very deep pockets, barge their way into climbing and, in so doing, 'reshape' it. And when it's 'reshaped', the soul may be ripped out of it. 

Hopefully this will never happen. (Please let it never happen!) All I'm suggesting is that it might be better if we're on our guard.

Mick

I'm glad you found my tales of woe in skateboarding useful, as I really think where skateboarding was in the late 90's early 00's reflects where climbing is now. 

The big sea change when took place the X-Games happened, it blew skating right up and along came the multinationals.  Not sure that the Olympics will have the same effect on climbing (which I'm all for!) but the parallels are there. 

I wonder if anyone has any more examples? - I'd be interested to hear how the big co's are involved in the other activities you mention.

I too am concerned about the commodotisation and commercialisation of climbing, but I'm also not dead against large multi nationals becoming involved in our world (let's face it, they already are).  I just think that we have to continue to look at what we're doing, and asking ourselves if we're doing it in the right way and for the right reasons.  Can we improve ourselves, our sport and indeed these corporations' CSR by becoming involved with each other?  

I agree we should be on our guard, but I also think there are opportunities for us as a community to take ownership of.  We can't afford to stand in the corner covering our heads (much as we'd like to) as these companies have enough money to buy their way in.

Just like when we're climbing a route, there might be reason to be scared, but if we can use that fear to propel us forward rather than hold us back then we can really achieve something.

Christ I'm a cheesy f*cker.

'Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot...'  (Joni Mitchell)

Mick

Well put!

As I understand it, the problem with Coke is not just that it's a big corporation (like Macdonalds) but that it is buying up water from all around the world and impoverishing local communities by drying up their water supplies.

RedBull coming to a crag near you...

On cue today... @Stanage mid afternoon 2 young ladies walk up to popular end with Red Bull rucksacks (in the shape of a can) and start handing our free cans of Red Bull... I shit you not. 

It's also the world's no. 1 producer of plastic pollution.  You'll not hear any defence of them from me! 

OMG Mick, so to the point. Actually there are more than a few very important points that you covered under the common "Commoditisation" topic. And I just happen to agree with them all. The topic could have been a book. Those points could have been chapters of the book. But you gave it all out in "just" an article. Why did you do it? Is it because "that's that we do"?

This is waaaay more than "an article". Excellent work, I'm so sharing this.

I agree with Mick. The hills (full stop) are being dumbed down with 4 lane and highways being built up the popular hills and mountains and it won't stop there

Creating stepped paths of local stone to combat horrendous erosion is unfortunately having a side effect of dumbing down the hills.

As per claims of new routes - photos please 😁

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8d6tszfv1p6avyv/IMG_20200306_175750.jpg?dl=0

Thanks for photo, interesting rucksacks.

Bit weird doing it on Friday, you'd expect something like that - whatever it was - to be done when more people around so Sat or Sun. Maybe a practice run?

Wouldn't expect it to be done at all... Unless it was lots of folks stood around waiting for train... They literally spent as long to walk up and down to the crag as they were there

The UK is a bit weird (not unique) in that it is not an inherently an "outdoors" or "mountaineering" country.  It's a tiny island crammed with people, and people-based infrastructures, with only small pockets of regions (paddocks, outcrops, and hills) that resemble aspects of wilderness or alpine environments.  Nothing like the kinds of environment on offer in some other countries associated with these pursuits.  Also the weather is atrocious much of the time.

So people here have to make a real effort to pursue some of these activities.  And they will all have their own reasons for making that effort.  Once they do, they will often have to share the limited number of venues with many others.  It is inevitable that some people will disagree with the reasons of others for doing all of that.

This issue grows over time: as the general population, level of wealth, technology, information, and other factors enable greater access.  Commercialization and other forms of promotion just contribute to that growth.

 They just wanted to be associated with something which was deemed 'cool' or 'edgy' or whatever the contemporary term is.

The term you are looking for Mick, is 'sick'.

You're welcome

Ah that shit-faced company had girls handing out free cans of Red Bullshit at Mile End Climbing Wall some 20 or more years ago. Girls for God's sake, Like we climbers then would accept a free can from a girly. Yeuch. And it bloody worked. 

It's quite weird , that juxtaposition of Stanage and the corporate world. I remember reading Johnny Dawes saying that the Peak had become like London, in being full of logos as he put it. Quite prescient with it being ten years ago.

This story clearly made people think!!  In a Melbourne laneway last month young graffiti dirtbags took back a laneway that the 'new age' dirtbags had turned in to a commercial opportunity:

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/hosier-lane-vandalism-divide...

A model to follow??  But, where did the commercialisation start?  

When I were a lad back in the 70's (I am a Yorkshireman) I remember Sid Perou filming Rock Athlete one evening down at one of the the revolutionary new style training walls at Bradford University.  I can't remember if you were there that night Mick?  Livesy, Gomersall and Bonny were.  The start of climbing on TV for the masses.  So, maybe we seniors only have ourselves to blame?  If I could turn back time.... 

On the other hand maybe it's just the natural evolution of our art?  I wish I could perform at current grades! All about  your lens on the world.  Which is why we need these conversations!  

Got to make a move and get to my local Climbfit Wall in Kirrawee, Sydney:

https://www.climbfit.com.au/kirrawee

Can't miss an advertising opportunity.  It's tough days here in Sydney following the bushfires!!

Great article Mick, keep 'em coming.

Dave 

This story clearly made people think!!  In a Melbourne laneway last month young graffiti dirtbags took back a laneway that the 'new age' dirtbags had turned in to a commercial opportunity:

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/hosier-lane-vandalism-divide...

A model to follow??  But, where did the commercialisation start?  

When I were a lad back in the 70's (I am a Yorkshireman) I remember Sid Perou filming Rock Athlete one evening down at one of the the revolutionary new style training walls at Bradford University.  I can't remember if you were there that night Mick?  Livesy, Gomersall and Bonny were.  The start of climbing on TV for the masses.  So, maybe we seniors only have ourselves to blame?  If I could turn back time.... 

On the other hand maybe it's just the natural evolution of our art?  I wish I could perform at current grades! All about  your lens on the world.  Which is why we need these conversations!  

Got to make a move and get to my local Climbfit Wall in Kirrawee, Sydney:

https://www.climbfit.com.au/kirrawee

Can't miss an advertising opportunity.  It's tough days here in Sydney following the bushfires!!

Great article Mick, keep 'em coming.

Dave 

Unless access to places like Stanage and what people do there starts being regulated, I don't suppose people will lose being able to risk their lives in lead and solo climbing and other ways. 

Hi Dave,

Great to hear from you! You should post more on here.

I can't remember seeing Sid Perou filming at the Bradford wall. I'd probably moved to Keighley by then and wasn't spending so much time at the wall. I think 'Rock Athlete' was quite an apt title at the time. It certainly indicated the training ethos, which set our generation apart.

Although 'Rock Athlete' moved things on, there were several televised climbing programmes in the 1960s - Cloggy, Kilnsey and Hoy. The 1967 Old Man of Hoy one really captured the public imagination. For years afterwards, non-climbers would refer to it if they learned you were a climber. Well, that and Everest!

Anyway, enough of all this; get yourself down the wall! I rolled down to a real dirtbag place today, a tunnel underneath a bridge(!), lots of spraypainted 'art' on it (doesn't really help the friction), as in your photograph. About 70 moves on a traverse, most of them fluffable. Today most definitely was 'the day', my time of truth. Oh, the anxiety...

The first dozen moves, you tell yourself it doesn't really matter, you can just start again. But then, of course, the further and futher you get, the more you've got to lose. And the tension ratchets up... and up. And the closer and closer you get to the last crux, conveniently situated right at the end. 

The turmoil of emotions, forcing yourself to semi-rest, yet impatient to get it over with, one way or another. The aching disbelief as you go through the crux, over-gripping like crazy. The last few moves, again over-gripping, please, please don't blow it now.

And then the relief, the sheer blessed enormity of relief. 'Whom do we conquer? None but ourselves.'

Dave, keep the fire burning!

All best wishes,

Mick

When I first read the title I wondered if you meant commodification, rather than commoditization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditization

"This is not to be confused with commodification, which is a Marxist term for things being assigned economic value which they (according to Marxist theory) did not previously possess, by their being produced and presented for sale, as opposed to personal use.[1] One way to summarize the difference is that commoditization is about proprietary things becoming generic, whereas commodification is about nonsaleable things becoming saleable. In social sciences, particularly anthropology, the term is used interchangeably with commodification to describe the process of making commodities out of anything that was not available for trade previously."

Your article straddles both issues, Mick, which is fine, but there are subtle differences. The things climbers often complain about are really commodification, but commoditization is the broader issue.

And snowboarding even more so - race slalom snowboarding is the speed climbing of the snow sports world, with no connection whatsoever to back country, big mountain stuff. 

Yawn. I'm an old geezer, but these kind of alarmist articles bore me. New generations don't care, nor should they.