[Johnny Brown]

Important for what? -

To get sponsorship or funding, I think. The editors may only report worthwhile stuff, fine, but if the hardcore guys can't get funding then some of the best stuff just isn't going to happen. Meaning editors will have to report less worthwhile stuff, perpetuating the decline.

In (wilderness) photography it is already becoming obvious to me that despite the massive gains in equipment modern work does not have the depth of the older stuff; mainly because making money is so hard you can't commit enough time to it, but also because photographs have become disposable.

[Wood FT]

Important for what? -

To get sponsorship or funding, I think. The editors may only report worthwhile stuff, fine, but if the hardcore guys can't get funding then some of the best stuff just isn't going to happen. Meaning editors will

That was a theme I saw in the Thrasher article you linked on here, that those in the media spotlight act as a driving force for future progression, and that to give too much of this spotlight to those with the most noise would hinder this progression. Little Jimmy or Sally will see the news and think an 8c/or a well oiled E8 headpoint is the ceilling they should be aiming for.

I discussed this with Stu and he said some thoughtful things on it that I don't want to make a hash of it trying to remember them here, something along the lines of it's up to to the top climbers themselves to play the game in some aspect as a means of displaying the top level. If they don't want to that's fair enough, but they are contrbuting to the decline just as much as Mr Regardez Moi on Instagram. Stu - correct me if I've got that wrong.

[SA Chris]

To a certain extent this is similar to Olympic sports in UK at the moment. I went to a talk with David Florence (Olympic White Water Canoe medalist) about this (he says hi) and allocation of Lottery funding for "mainstream sports" is totally dependent on the performance and results of the top competitors, so the top guys have a huge amount of pressure on them to deliver the goods at every event, as the development of the sport relies on them.

[Oldmanmatt]

Important for what? -

To get sponsorship or funding, I think. The editors may only report worthwhile stuff, fine, but if the hardcore guys can't get funding then some of the best stuff just isn't going to happen. Meaning editors will

That was a theme I saw in the Thrasher article you linked on here, that those in the media spotlight act as a driving force for future progression, and that to give too much of this spotlight to those with the most noise would hinder this progression. Little Jimmy or Sally will see the news and think an 8c/or a well oiled E8 headpoint is the ceilling they should be aiming for.

I discussed this with Stu and he said some thoughtful things on it that I don't want to make a hash of it trying to remember them here, something along the lines of it's up to to the top climbers themselves to play the game in some aspect as a means of displaying the top level. If they don't want to that's fair enough, but they are contrbuting to the decline just as much as Mr Regardez Moi on Instagram. Stu - correct me if I've got that wrong.

I see your point, however, by the time little Jimmy and Sally are approaching that 8c/E8; they will be fully aware how far away the pinnacle is.

That pot of sponsorship money grows with the popularity of the sport and the size of the manufacturers looking to advertise. When the Spray Queens tempt the Middle-class dog walkers into emulating that romanticised version of climbing, spending a fortune on High Altitude Mountaineering gear for a ten minute stroll up Haytor, to purchase all that shiny gear that gets used once a year at most; it has little impact on our enjoyment of the art and increases the available pot ten-fold.

I'd wager there is way more money available for serious contenders today than twenty years ago.

There may, of course, also be way more serious contenders vying for a cut...

[petejh]

That pot of sponsorship money grows with the popularity of the sport and the size of the manufacturers looking to advertise. When the Spray Queens tempt the Middle-class dog walkers into emulating that romanticised version of climbing, spending a fortune on High Altitude Mountaineering gear for a ten minute stroll up Haytor, to purchase all that shiny gear that gets used once a year at most; it has little impact on our enjoyment of the art and increases the available pot ten-fold.

I'd wager there is way more money available for serious contenders today than twenty years ago.

There may, of course, also be way more serious contenders vying for a cut...

The size of any money pot in 'climbing' is close to totally irrelevant to and separate from the progression of climbing standards in some types of climbing - I'd suggest trad, alpine, mixed; and undoubtedly helpful but not essential in others - indoor comps and possibly some trickle-down into sport climbing.
If you disagree then explain why British trad, alpine, winter climbing and sport climbing top standards today are barely better than they were in the 1990s; while sponsorship opportunities today are far greater.

Exceptional climbers climb, you don't need to pay them to be cutting edge, the cream will rise. The best end up getting paid - Ondra, Sharma etc.

[petejh]

Important for what? -

To get sponsorship or funding, I think. The editors may only report worthwhile stuff, fine, but if the hardcore guys can't get funding then some of the best stuff just isn't going to happen. Meaning editors will have to report less worthwhile stuff, perpetuating the decline.

In (wilderness) photography it is already becoming obvious to me that despite the massive gains in equipment modern work does not have the depth of the older stuff; mainly because making money is so hard you can't commit enough time to it, but also because photographs have become disposable.

If worthwhile stuff goes down when no lens is looking does it count as worthwhile?


Photos - they've become commonplace. A bit like sponsored ambassadors doing average deeds. If you saw Picasso's every day for years they'd lose their value, monetary and asthetic.

[Stu Littlefair]

Guy got my position about right. I can understand someone resenting sponsorship cash going to fund uninspiring shit because the climbers involved have a strong media presence. The Mallorca DWS trip mentioned in that article is a prime example. It's just an unremarkable holiday but it produces marketable media, so...

The question is how do you respond to that? I've little patience for a badass climber who doesn't want to produce interesting (and marketable) media products, but still wants sponsors to fund their next trip to climb some vertical choss in the middle of nowhere.

I think that whilst social media has made the "spray queens" and "spray kings" more visible, there's a parallel trend which has attracted less attention. That trend is for the climbers who are out there doing gnarly shit to not tell their stories, and indeed to be a bit sniffy about playing the media "game".

When I grew up much of the inspiring climbing literature was produced by those on the cutting edge themselves - think "View from dead horse point", or Livesey's essays. Wasn't Bonnington such a big part of the pioneering Himalayan trips in part because of his skills as a story teller and fundraiser?

If today's climbing culture is uninspiring that is, in part, because those of us with inspiring stories to tell are not interested in doing so. This creates a space which can be filled by people who don't have an interesting story to tell, but do want to get sponsorship and have some oversaturated photos of their latest dull redpoint to give to sponsors.

In short, Ryan is to blame for our current predicament just as much as SBC.

[Oldmanmatt]

That pot of sponsorship money grows with the popularity of the sport and the size of the manufacturers looking to advertise. When the Spray Queens tempt the Middle-class dog walkers into emulating that romanticised version of climbing, spending a fortune on High Altitude Mountaineering gear for a ten minute stroll up Haytor, to purchase all that shiny gear that gets used once a year at most; it has little impact on our enjoyment of the art and increases the available pot ten-fold.

I'd wager there is way more money available for serious contenders today than twenty years ago.

There may, of course, also be way more serious contenders vying for a cut...

The size of any money pot in 'climbing' is close to totally irrelevant to and separate from the progression of climbing standards in some types of climbing - I'd suggest trad, alpine, mixed; and undoubtedly helpful but not essential in others - indoor comps and possibly some trickle-down into sport climbing.
If you disagree then explain why British trad, alpine, winter climbing and sport climbing top standards today are barely better than they were in the 1990s; while sponsorship opportunities today are far greater.

Exceptional climbers climb, you don't need to pay them to be cutting edge, the cream will rise. The best end up getting paid - Ondra, Sharma etc.

Actually, I think that was pretty much my point.
The lack of progression in trad (is there? At a certain point, doesn't "trad" progression simply become "soloing 9b"? Or to put it less confrontationally, taking bigger risks on harder ground?), is more to do with it being less popular than sport/bouldering with top end athletes, surely?

[Duma]

The dole.

[petejh]

Guy got my position about right. I can understand someone resenting sponsorship cash going to fund uninspiring shit because the climbers involved have a strong media presence. The Mallorca DWS trip mentioned in that article is a prime example. It's just an unremarkable holiday but it produces marketable media, so...

The question is how do you respond to that? I've little patience for a badass climber who doesn't want to produce interesting (and marketable) media products, but still wants sponsors to fund their next trip to climb some vertical choss in the middle of nowhere.

I think that whilst social media has made the "spray queens" and "spray kings" more visible, there's a parallel trend which has attracted less attention. That trend is for the climbers who are out there doing gnarly shit to not tell their stories, and indeed to be a bit sniffy about playing the media "game".

When I grew up much of the inspiring climbing literature was produced by those on the cutting edge themselves - think "View from dead horse point", or Livesey's essays. Wasn't Bonnington such a big part of the pioneering Himalayan trips in part because of his skills as a story teller and fundraiser?

If today's climbing culture is uninspiring that is, in part, because those of us with inspiring stories to tell are not interested in doing so. This creates a space which can be filled by people who don't have an interesting story to tell, but do want to get sponsorship and have some oversaturated photos of their latest dull redpoint to give to sponsors.

In short, Ryan is to blame for our current predicament just as much as SBC.

Never heard of him.

[Duma]

Sorry, reply was to Pete. (not that I necessarily disagree)

[petejh]

OK, but what was the dole and what were circumstances like compared to today...

80s/90s:
A bunch of unemployed skint teens and twenty-somethings surviving on £20 a week, hitching around, dossing in sheds and caves and climbing enough that lots of them got quite good at it.

2016:
A bunch of seemingly fairly privileged teens and twenty-somethings delaying employment following uni, driving around, living in vans/foreign apartments and climbing enough that lots of them get quite good at it - about as good as the good youths in the 80s/90s. And spending lots and lots of time telling the virtual world about it so they can get some free shoes and get to say they're supported by La Wild Face.

[Oldmanmatt]

OK, but what was the dole and what were circumstances like compared to today...

80s/90s:
A bunch of unemployed skint teens and twenty-somethings surviving on £20 a week, hitching around, dossing in sheds and caves and climbing enough that lots of them got quite good at it.

2016:
A bunch of seemingly fairly privileged teens and twenty-somethings delaying employment following uni, driving around, living in vans/foreign apartments and climbing enough that lots of them get quite good at it - about as good as the good youths in the 80s/90s. And spending lots and lots of time telling the virtual world about it so they can get some free shoes and get to say they're supported by La Wild Face.

Well, they are, they do and they are no less good because of it.

Advancement of the art will necessarily fall to an ever smaller percentage of the population as we approach the limits of what is humanly possible (I'm aware some think that is a long way off, I'm not so optimistic; I think it's getting close).

I just don't see the Spray Queens as important or damaging to that progression.

I can't see that there is any less advancement, I can only imagine the expansion of the industry provides more opportunities (real sponsorships, that make a massive financial contribution to a young climbers development would be access to training facilities and coaching, not a pair of shoes).

It's certainly not the preserve of the affluent and most of that sponsorship, so bragged about; ammounts to very little in real terms.

Also, if you were to devalue or remove from history, the contributions of those who's independent means allowed them to pursue some esoteric/academic/sporting endeavour; we'd still be lighting candles when the sun set.

It's not right/fair, only inasmuch as we've yet to achieve Utopia (we could, now, with current technology, if we weren't such selfish tossers).

[petejh]

Also, if you were to devalue or remove from history, the contributions of those who's independent means allowed them to pursue some esoteric/academic/sporting endeavour; we'd still be lighting candles when the sun set.

No we wouldn't.

[Oldmanmatt]

Also, if you were to devalue or remove from history, the contributions of those who's independent means allowed them to pursue some esoteric/academic/sporting endeavour; we'd still be lighting candles when the sun set.

No we wouldn't.

Yes we would. [emoji12]

[Falling Down]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2070866/social-media-screwing-over-explorers-iceland-coldest-crossing

*content* 

[tomtom]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2070866/social-media-screwing-over-explorers-iceland-coldest-crossing

*content* 

Interesting article that...

[Oldmanmatt]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2070866/social-media-screwing-over-explorers-iceland-coldest-crossing

*content* 

Interesting article that...

Yep.

I think there might be something else, that was danced around in there, though. There are differences between the climbing community view that these are Herculean endeavours of the Grand Masters and the perception of the public at large. A new route on an already conquered peak, to Joe Public, is not inspiring; it's a rerun.

[Muenchener]

I made some comments earlier in this thread about people needing to take their marketing responsibilities seriously if they want companies to sponsor them. But then I read that article, and I take it all back. Ueli Fucking Steck doesn't have a high enough media profile? What? The world has gone insane.

[tomtom]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2070866/social-media-screwing-over-explorers-iceland-coldest-crossing

*content* 

Interesting article that...

Yep.

I think there might be something else, that was danced around in there, though. There are differences between the way the climbing community view that these are Herculean endeavours of the Grand Masters and the perception of the public at large. A new route on an already conquered peak, to Joe Public, is not inspiring; it's a rerun.

I think the key point is that the non-gods of the climbing world are easier for the companies punters to relate to.

More personal, easier to know, to relate to. EG (And this may be missing loads of things that I've not seen) - but I've seen a few Ueli Steck videos of him doing some amazing (fast often) climbing etc.. but we don't see him getting wankered with his mates, or dancing like a dad at a wedding, or ~ I don't know facing up to the camera and talking about failure or the hard stuff he's done. I bet he's a lovely bloke, but what he does is so different from what I can ever do its hard to relate to. Of course great scenery, thrills etc.. all work as being interesting/great to watch...

The best vid I've seen this year is of that mad Kiwi dancing around in his Dungarees - OK, he climbs a nails problem in a moderately heart racing way, but you warm to his character and become engaged in his exploits and his journey that way...

[Oldmanmatt]

Of course, things could be worse; at least SBC et al don't sing about it...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=itvvFfeLh84&feature=youtu.be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[highrepute]

Guy got my position about right. I can understand someone resenting sponsorship cash going to fund uninspiring shit because the climbers involved have a strong media presence. The Mallorca DWS trip mentioned in that article is a prime example. It's just an unremarkable holiday but it produces marketable media, so...

The question is how do you respond to that? I've little patience for a badass climber who doesn't want to produce interesting (and marketable) media products, but still wants sponsors to fund their next trip to climb some vertical choss in the middle of nowhere.

I think that whilst social media has made the "spray queens" and "spray kings" more visible, there's a parallel trend which has attracted less attention. That trend is for the climbers who are out there doing gnarly shit to not tell their stories, and indeed to be a bit sniffy about playing the media "game".

When I grew up much of the inspiring climbing literature was produced by those on the cutting edge themselves - think "View from dead horse point", or Livesey's essays. Wasn't Bonnington such a big part of the pioneering Himalayan trips in part because of his skills as a story teller and fundraiser?

If today's climbing culture is uninspiring that is, in part, because those of us with inspiring stories to tell are not interested in doing so. This creates a space which can be filled by people who don't have an interesting story to tell, but do want to get sponsorship and have some oversaturated photos of their latest dull redpoint to give to sponsors.

In short, Ryan is to blame for our current predicament just as much as SBC.

I agree but I think the internet and social media have changed things. Back in the day magazines only came out once a month, even Ryan could probably get in 1 mag a year. These days there's a desire pressure for Daily updates. No sane person would want to do that, it's exhausting, so we're left with the insane spray kings and queens. Quality inevitably becomes secondary to quantity in this scenario.

Is it top climbers fault for not contributing enough or the industry/consumers fault for wanting something right now, with a #filtered picture?

Answer in less than 140 character please.

[a dense loner]

I'm not interested in what these people do

[Johnny Brown]

More relevant comment: http://www.mountainsandwater.com/2016/04/why-sponsorship-is-such-thing.html

In short, Ryan is to blame for our current predicament just as much as SBC.

No. I remember reading a rant by a musician's manager after the musician had just given a disastrous interview. 'Why do you expect this guy to be articulate?' he said, 'He's a genius musician, if you want to understand his genius listen to the music.' He was biased, of course, but he made a valid point. (Guess who for a wad point...)

Climbing is big enough that it should be able to support genius talent without them having to be their own self-publicist. Some will be able to do both and all power to them. But both aren't required in almost any other sport. Performance is all. If we want our biggest talents to thrive they need support.

Meanwhile, folk who have a talent for telling stories through words or pictures should have a think about what stories they might want to tell. It might be easy ego gratification to use your talent to promote yourself, but long term you've got far more chance of producing something of lasting worth by teaming up with those who are doing the amazing stuff.

[Oldmanmatt]

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4089


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk