[petejh]

Think it's entrants, not podiums.

[Durbs]

Source: ifsc website

Yeah, entrants not podiums, I'll sort that later!

[a dense loner]

Lund, I hate posts like Petes that basically said, Tyler entered Tyler won since he's the only good one there. There are other good people out there and other good ones at the event. I don't hate Pete at all. I think he's very thin and very dedicated. I do blame him for Doylo not having done an 8c f.a. Since he's had to find work elsewhere cos he's being slack 

Ps I left a capital S after the full stop at the end of f.a. That was intentional, so was that 

[Oldmanmatt]

Right...

We have no simple, organised, Bouldering league in the UK (adults) that gives a clear picture of who stands where in even a national setting, let alone international.

We have patchy, un-enthusiastic support from NGB.

There seems little to promote the individual dedication required to pursue national/international competition careers, despite the girl's fantastic performance in the past couple of seasons.

I believe (shit, I hope this is plain enough to satisfy Dense), Climbing (particularly indoor and comp) is a sufficiently distinct sport to (ideally) require it's own NGB  and that should be the ABC.

Athletics and Gymnastics do not share an NGB, yet they are (arguably) more akin than Hill walking and Bouldering.

Christ, Judo and Karate don't share an NGB.

THe BMC has enough to do, things of vastly greater import than Comp climbing, that rightly deserve (and get) more time and funding.

The various "established" sports NGB's grew out of associations of clubs around the country.
Competition climbing struggles with this model because we don't have that kind of Climbing clubs.
We have Walls, that occupy a strange limbo between club and commercial entity and (in their own interests), should organise in the promotion of their sport.
Those Walls already have a national association, with the right people/enthusiasm, that group would be very well placed to take on the NGB role.

Addendum.

They won't / things won't change unless the ordinary Boulders/Climbers push for that change.

Dense,
If you have a better idea, or like things just the way they are, just say so....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Lund, I hate posts like Petes that basically said, Tyler entered Tyler won since he's the only good one there. There are other good people out there and other good ones at the event. I don't hate Pete at all. I think he's very thin and very dedicated. I do blame him for Doylo not having done an 8c f.a. Since he's had to find work elsewhere cos he's being slack 

Doylo's a very naughty boy and he's been sent away to guernsey to earn shit loads of tax free fuck-alls for doing fuck all. He's going to come back fat from duty free boozing and weak from granite slabs. The easier A55 crags should suit perfectly.

[Lund]

The ABC? I don't think so.




Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

Right...

We have patchy, un-enthusiastic support from NGB.

This is at least partly because the BMC is not a National Governing Body. It is a Representative body. I seem to remember this actually tripped up the olympic bid. The difference is significant because the vast majority of climbers have never wanted or needed governing, but do want representing for issues such as access, liability and equipment. It is not just semantics.

Someone informed than me may be able to chip in on the Sports council funding the BMC receives and the conditions attached.

As Matt says, a separate governing body for climbing comps is one solution. However there would be funding issues to be resolved. A subsidiary body of the BMC would seem to be the best solution to me.

[Lund]

Right...

We have patchy, un-enthusiastic support from NGB.

This is at least partly because the BMC is not a National Governing Body. It is a Representative body. I seem to remember this actually tripped up the olympic bid. The difference is significant because the vast majority of climbers have never wanted or needed governing, but do want representing for issues such as access, liability and equipment. It is not just semantics.

IIRC: it didn't make any difference to the Olympic bid; we didn't actually do a great deal here apart from let the IFSC get on with it.  It did come up in the interminable discussion, you're right about that though.

You're right too that the BMC has evolved from it's origins as a centralised body representing climbers.  It's origins lie in being a spin off from the alpine club, but with the other 20-odd clubs contributing to it.  It had at the outset "representing all climbers", but in reality the "all" here was mainly meant to be "not just those in the alpine clubs but other gentlemen in other clubs too".  In time it's morphed into an uneasy mix of club and individuals, attempting to represent everyone... but still being a members only organisation... funded through a mix of insurance profits, membership levies, and grants from the government.

Interestingly, for me there's a definite subservience thing here: the BMC was conceived as providing a service to it's well-to-do members, rather than governing them.

However, where does competition fit into this?  This complicates it in a couple of ways:

* Competition in every degree needs rules.  Normal climbing doesn't have rules, it has ethics.  If there are rules of entry and the actual competition... then you need someone to set them.  That is, by definition, the governing body.  The BMC sets these in the UK, as much as anyone.

* Externally, there are a number of organisations that need a central contact and someone to talk to about climbing.  The IFSC needs to know who's on the team.  Who sits on its board or committees or whatever.  The government sees competition and sport and realises that everyone else has an NGB... where is climbings?  They want to give them money.  Their gaze lands upon the BMC.

In my book, much of the navel gazing and twisting and turning the BMC does is over this clash (and other similar, such as "we don't encourage people to go climbing because it's dangerous" vs "our funding requires increased participation") causes it as an organisation to tie itself in knots, especially at the interface between the volunteer corps and the reality of implementation by the staff.

Climbing needs an NGB.  The BMC is that body, de facto, and only partially acknowledged.

Someone informed than me may be able to chip in on the Sports council funding the BMC receives and the conditions attached.

IIRC:

The funding is for specific "projects".  The scope of a project is quite wide.  Essentially, what you do is every few years think of some ideas for things that you can show will increase participation - Sport Englands requirement - and submit a bid.

SE decide which to award you and give you money.  You have to use that money on that thing (although in some cases you can ask nicely to repurpose it for something else instead, i.e. re-bid to re-purpose - e.g. "we don't need the awarded 10K for the website, we only need 3, can we blow the other 7 on this other scheme that's going really well and we can enlarge it?").

Things bid for and awarded in the past include the L&SE development officer (so salary and costs associated with that post), money for clubs to build their own websites, money for equipment for clubs, instructors/coaching, etc.

The bid period is three years, but SE review participation figures regularly through a very distrusted (by many of the NGBs) survey called "the active people survey".  If your sport doesn't badly, then they take money away - and cancel some of the programmes.

They can also force you to take other measures.  "We won't give you any more money unless you can show us that you are doing X to make your organisation better."  For example, the independent directors on the BMC's board are from this feedback mechanism.  (Again, IIRC.)

As Matt says, a separate governing body for climbing comps is one solution. However there would be funding issues to be resolved. A subsidiary body of the BMC would seem to be the best solution to me.

Something independent of the BMC, rather than subsidiary, would be better: then it doesn't have the (many) constraints (internal and external) that the BMC labours under.

[Durbs]

Finished me spreadsheet...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4TP9Sc1Esn8NElyQUY3Ql9WRlU/view?usp=sharing

Not sure if pivot tables work in Google docs - but you can (in the original) expand country to view individuals, and apply a filter to show (for example) only top 3 finishers.
I couldn't find a list of all podium places.

[Durbs]

Possibly of interest, total number of entrants in 2015 for Men (53) and Women (52). Previous years for both have been around 80-90. The double-china trip taking down the numbers?

[pigeon]

OK, comp fans.

One final post from me now I've checked a couple of points .

(Stu – yep , the second vid isn’t ideal, but without a time machine it’s the best the guys could do. )

I’ve now been able to check viewing figures for previous live streams with Rob Adie, our Comps guy.

When we live streamed it in 2014 (which cost £2,500) the stats at the time were:

Men’s quals: 879 views total / 111 live
Women’s quals 847 views total / 103 live
Semi finals 890 views total / 165 live
Finals 3135 views total / 273 live

The finals video has now had 12K views in total.

So, live numbers are very low. However, it looks like there is a decent demand for watching this live format at a later date. For 2016, we just need to work out the best way of getting value for money and the best setup for the viewers. All feedback so far has helped too, and will help our approach for next year.

Also, an explanation of BBC finances from Rob:

“For the BBCs, the major costs for the BMC are routesetting, prize money, volunteer expenses, vests etc, a total of 8K, which comes directly from a Sport England budget allocated to this event.

The main issue with doing the event elsewhere is funding the infrastructure costs which are significant. At Cliffhanger, Sheffield Council provide the infrastructure costs, but the BMC provide this major event which brings a lot of the people to Cliffhanger in the first place. Sheffield CC understand that and that’s why they are willing to invest in it.”

Hope this helps. I'm out of there. Any more feedback to alex@thebmc.co.uk

cheers

[Duma]

How widely/well was the live stream promoted in 2014? without this info the numbers are pretty meaningless.

[r-man]

When we live streamed it in 2014 (which cost £2,500) the stats at the time were:

Men’s quals: 879 views total / 111 live
Women’s quals 847 views total / 103 live
Semi finals 890 views total / 165 live
Finals 3135 views total / 273 live

The finals video has now had 12K views in total.

Those numbers are probably a little on the low side because 2014 was the year the BBC clashed with a World Cup round. Shauna wasn't there and I'm sure lots of comp fans chose to watch an international event rather than a local one.

From the same year, the CWIF video has racked up 16,668 views. You would think that BBC should big bigger news than the CWIF? Clearly, the Works did better with both promotion and scheduling.

[abarro81]

You would think that BBC should big bigger news than the CWIF?

Not sure about that. CWIF generally has significantly more wads, which is key really. I wouldn't watch the BBCs live I doubt, but would watch CWIF. Plus it's scheduled at a time of year when it's darker in the evenings so you're likely to be home from climbing by the time the finals are on.

[rodma]

You would think that BBC should big bigger news than the CWIF?

Not sure about that. CWIF generally has significantly more wads, which is key really. I wouldn't watch the BBCs live I doubt, but would watch CWIF. Plus it's scheduled at a time of year when it's darker in the evenings so you're likely to be home from climbing by the time the finals are on.

I'd rather watch an international than the nationals in any sport. The CWIF started small (even i qualified for the semi's the first year, due to lack of wads), but is now appears to be a massive success

I'd rather do the nationals than the CWIF, but that's only because the CWIF is self scoring through the qualifiers.

in an ideal world (for me) the CWIF qualifier would be policed to avoid full cheatage to get into the semi's and that way the full results would mean something, then that'd be the one I'd want to do. It'd be a logistical nightmare to police though.

we've had visiting wads take part in the bbc's before, like CWP, Wouter Jongeneelan (sp), Nige  etc., but i don't think these added anything to the watchability factor, since they're still just the nationals, so won't draw all or even a reasonable proportion of the world's best.

[a dense loner]

I agree with rodma, a big comp where people govern themselves through the early stages is barking.

Also as comps get bigger something will have to be done to keep the number of competitors acceptable. I don't envy anyone that job.

[Oldmanmatt]

I agree with rodma, a big comp where people govern themselves through the early stages is barking.

Also as comps get bigger something will have to be done to keep the number of competitors acceptable. I don't envy anyone that job.

Hence my reference to a league...
Regionals leading to nationals.

And, thus, the problem of the lack of "clubs".

I see no reason to not follow that standard system, so prevalent in other sports; except that most of the facilities required are private, profit making (ha,ha,ha, I wish), entities.

Though, with the registration process used at most walls, they are halfway to club status anyway...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

It could be run like tennis champs... Some get in on their ranking, some may have to qualify - or there may be wildcards...

[rodma]

Hence my reference to a league...
Regionals leading to nationals.

I meant for an International, the Nationals are fine as they are, it all gets sorted out on the day, since the problems are judged.

i can't imagine anything worse than regional bullshit heats set at local walls, with local holds on local angles/features being used as holds. fine for a fun series, but shit on a stick otherwise, unless you mean, fully stripped walls, proper setters being brought in bringing their own holds with etc. etc., in which case that would be something approaching fairness.

[Oldmanmatt]

Hence my reference to a league...
Regionals leading to nationals.

I meant for an International, the Nationals are fine as they are, it all gets sorted out on the day, since the problems are judged.

i can't imagine anything worse than regional bullshit heats set at local walls, with local holds on local angles/features being used as holds. fine for a fun series, but shit on a stick otherwise, unless you mean, fully stripped walls, proper setters being brought in bringing their own holds with etc. etc., in which case that would be something approaching fairness.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I mean.

These are nascent ideas (for me at least) and it's a tall order, even a paradigm shift of the UK competition culture.

Something which was inconceivable until the last few years (it's only been, what, 6 years? Since the first "real" wall west of Bristol opened.)

And such a league would be dependent on availability of training facilities.

Most of the new, large, bouldering walls have a comp wall, that would serve well at the "regional" level and could be utilised without affecting the business of the wall.

It is the organising authority which is lacking/missing.

A set of comp holds would not be too hard or expensive to obtain, I'm sure some manufacturers could be persuaded to help out there.

Transporting and setting would be the crux, along with the required personnel.

There must be others who have similar ideas to me and I think they are more likely found in the industry than the BMC.
And, without active participation of the walls (the closest thing we have to clubs), it is impossible.

Are there enough people interested in such a league?

Is there enough support for the sport of Indoor Bouldering, as distinct from Bouldering, the esoteric, spiritual communion between human and rock?

I think there is amongst the youngsters and the BMC GB youth team selection process seems to be a good starting point.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fried]

Without wanting to sound ignorant (which I am), what is a competition wall? Does it have to be of a regulation height, texture?
I've seen it mentioned many times, but never thought to ask.

[Baldy]

There are some details on the BMC website with regards to National Performance Centres

https://thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=972

b.   Bouldering wall

Essential:

•   30-40m wide competition style bouldering wall (or walls) with matting and a large viewing area for spectators.
•   Separate isolation area with a warm-up wall.

Desirable:

•   Ability to hold other levels of climbing competitions.

There is some stuff about access from transport links etc, but nothing about angles heights etc. But I think the standard is something like 4m/4.5m, with a variety of angles. inc slight slab.
If anyone has more details I would be interested to read about them...

[rodma]

Hence my reference to a league...
Regionals leading to nationals.

I meant for an International, the Nationals are fine as they are, it all gets sorted out on the day, since the problems are judged.

i can't imagine anything worse than regional bullshit heats set at local walls, with local holds on local angles/features being used as holds. fine for a fun series, but shit on a stick otherwise, unless you mean, fully stripped walls, proper setters being brought in bringing their own holds with etc. etc., in which case that would be something approaching fairness.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I mean.

These are nascent ideas (for me at least) and it's a tall order, even a paradigm shift of the UK competition culture.

Something which was inconceivable until the last few years (it's only been, what, 6 years? Since the first "real" wall west of Bristol opened.)

And such a league would be dependent on availability of training facilities.

Most of the new, large, bouldering walls have a comp wall, that would serve well at the "regional" level and could be utilised without affecting the business of the wall.

It is the organising authority which is lacking/missing.

A set of comp holds would not be too hard or expensive to obtain, I'm sure some manufacturers could be persuaded to help out there.

Transporting and setting would be the crux, along with the required personnel.

There must be others who have similar ideas to me and I think they are more likely found in the industry than the BMC.
And, without active participation of the walls (the closest thing we have to clubs), it is impossible.

Are there enough people interested in such a league?

Is there enough support for the sport of Indoor Bouldering, as distinct from Bouldering, the esoteric, spiritual communion between human and rock?

I think there is amongst the youngsters and the BMC GB youth team selection process seems to be a good starting point.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nice if it could happen, but I reckon my wee boy will be retired by the time it gets organised.

There is only one wall in Scotland that fits the bill; it's a bit of a turd wurld cuntry in terms of facilities

[Oldmanmatt]

If you build it, they will come...
[emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rodma]

Hehe. Just chuck a cool million my way and It's achievable