[Munkii]

could bouldering be made an olympic sport for 2012?

ideas and thoughts on how it could be made possible.

[slackline]

ideas and thoughts on how it could be made possible.

Backhanders to line the pockets of some fat-cat IOC members.

[dave]

maybe if all the climbers have to follow a motorbike up the wall?

[Munkii]

not quite what i had in mind.

but seriously how can we make bouldering an olympic sport?

i  was thinking a massive petition on climbing/bouldering forums.

[slackline]

Sorry for the tongue in cheek reply, but personally I couldn't care less if climbing were in the olympics or not.

Fair do's to those who enjoy competing in climbing/bouldering competitions it just doesn't float my boat (mainly 'cause I'm shit, but of the few comps that I've watched my interest wasn't held for very long, nothing a short course of ritalin wouldn't solve though I'm sure).

[Jaspersharpe]

Tongue in cheek or not slackers your (and indeed dave's) suggestion is unfortunately much more likely to have some bearing on events than the biggest petition in the history of petitions.

[SA Chris]

but seriously how can we make bouldering an olympic sport?

i  was thinking a massive petition on climbing/bouldering forums.

Why would you want to? Personally it wouldn't change my life seeing it for 2 weeks on telly every 4 years. I would rather have quieter crags.

I think a poll on the matter would be a good idea.

[dave]

ditto, i woulnd't want it to. not many climbers give 2 shits about comps at the best of times, then couple that with the fact it'd have to work for TV audience to get any coverage (i.e. it'd end up being speedclimbing etc) it doesn't reek of a good idea to me. at best it'd be one of those sports like shooting or greco-roman wrestling that you'd never see on the telly anyway unless theres some major upset like a climber kicking the referee in the head, or a streaker.

[Fiend]

i  was thinking a massive petition on climbing/bouldering forums.

To ensure it stays well away, one presumes...

[Zods Beard]

Have it on a wall above a pool full of man eating crocs, with vicious monkeys wielding poison tipped knives roaming the wall. Loosen a couple of the holds, and set 8a.nu's finest at it.

[Sloper]

Sign me up (as a viewer)

[Munkii]

im not bothered about competition either. i have never been to a competition or taken part in one.

this is my line of thought.

climbing is made an olympic sport, publicity rises as it is a new sport in the olympic games. britain does well(ish) and as with the rowing and the cycling, more funding and facilities for climbing. more opportunities for young climbers and the vague possibility that other people (mainly adults but other kids are just as bad) may take their training and their ambitions in climbing seriousley.


i know it will probably never happen (just like me persuading my parents to turn our loft into a bouldering room) but everyone can dream and i thought a bouldering forum might be a suitable place to dream outloud (considering the topic).

thanks for input, bit of a longshot and a lot of wishing comes into my wild and helpless line of thought but...

[Jaspersharpe]

I think there are already a decent number of young (and old) lads taking their training seriously and doing some very impressive shit. Have a read of this thread......and that's juat the tip of the iceberg.

I get what you're saying about funding etc but I think all that would happen would be that a bit more lottery cash might go towards the competition climbers. It's not going to affect what's happening on the crags imo and as I say, what's happening on the crags is in a pretty healthy state already.

[Stu Littlefair]

Don't agree with Jasper for about the first time here. Especially on the continent a lot of the good shit that is happening on the crags has happened as a direct result of more focussed and systematic training for the comps. Even the best climbers don't get as much support as they could though.

Suppose a little more funding did come the way of sport climbing as a result of the olympics. I'm certain that the Spanish government would up the stipend it pays to top climbers a fair bit. Anyone care to speculate on what Patxi could achieve with a full-time masseuse and the best coaches money could buy?

[Johnny Brown]

Got to agree with Stu there. Most of the time I watched the olympics, it was in the company of non-climbing family/ friends. Several times they asked why isn't climbing in? I think a lead comp and a bouldering comp would work well. I can't see how increased investment in the sport wouldn't affect standards on the crags. Having said that, I guess it would be an exception in that winning a gold would never be seen as the ultimate achievement in the sport.

[dave]

to win a high level climbing comp, especially if it was advanced to olympic level, involves real specialisation and that means you train nothing but indoors for sucess indoors. so the winner could climb for a year without ever getting to a real crag. How many times a year does His Royal Hoyness get to fuck about on a BMX or MTB? probably never, he has to be at the track grafting like a machine. How often does Usain Bolt pop out for a sport of parkour? how often did steve redgrave get to piss about in a peddalo?

[Jaspersharpe]

Having said that, I guess it would be an exception in that winning a gold would never be seen as the ultimate achievement in the sport.

Not the only exception. Football and tennis for starters.

I take your points but think it's a bit of a rose tinted view. The increase in funding has to be there in the first place and then it has to be applied properly and to the correct people. Not everyone cares about comps as it's such a different sport now to actual climbing and obviously if you don't compete then you aint gonna get anything. I don't see how this would guarantee an increase in the standards of anything (other than certain competition climbers improving at competitions).

[Johnny Brown]

I'm encouraged by the current lack of indoor specialists winning the comps. (this is a very vague impression gained from I don't know where, but I think is true.)
The sponsorship would filter down. Lots of current trad heroes dallied with comps between the ages of 16-23. Once they've made a name and an income they could get on with the real deal. Plus they'd have had a leg-up with training advice.
The sport as a whole is facing decreasing funding directly due to not being represented in the Olympics.

Compared to similar sports we have woeful levels of sponsorship. Why is complicated but I think it might give sponsors a kick up the arse.

[slackline]

All this talk of additional funding for the sport of climbing got me thinking about what its actually needed for.

The conclusion I've come to is that the primary need for additional funding is to pay the exorbitant insurance premiums that indoor training facilites are required to have in the increasingly litigous society here in the UK.  Then we can all climb/train indoors for less when its raining

Why is complicated but I think it might give sponsors a kick up the arse.

Some sponsors/sponsored climbers are perhaps less aware of the historical culture/ethics involved in climbing, per exemple (Michael Fuselier is sponsored by Nike ACG, who are not what I would consider a "traditional" climbing equipment/clothing manufacturer) and it would be a shame to see this increase as a direct consequence of increased media exposure.

[Stu Littlefair]

to win a high level climbing comp, especially if it was advanced to olympic level, involves real specialisation and that means you train nothing but indoors for sucess indoors. so the winner could climb for a year without ever getting to a real crag. How many times a year does His Royal Hoyness get to fuck about on a BMX or MTB? probably never, he has to be at the track grafting like a machine. How often does Usain Bolt pop out for a sport of parkour? how often did steve redgrave get to piss about in a peddalo?

I think that's pretty much balls. After all, as I said above most of the rising standards in sports climbing have come from people heavily into the comp circuit. They get plenty of time to hit the crags and onsight 8c all day.

And your analogies are balls too. After all, days at the crag are good training for comps and vice versa. A better analogy would be Hoy spending days out road racing, or Bolt getting miles under his belt running round Jamaica, both of which sound perfectly reasonable to me...

[dave]

whatever - you're looking at climbing circa now and the last 20 years, which is a million miles away from how advanced training methods for other mainstream olympic disciplines. yeah people like jerry were winning comps and advancing standards outside in the 1980s, but the level of  training knowledge back then was something akin to cycling or running in the late 19th century.  few laps of the park followed by a packet of woodbines. even the invention of the cmapus board is still utterly primitive compared to todays training for proper sports. Its a far cry from the what it'd be like in olympic status. top runners etc have personal trainers, coaches, nutritionists, psysios etc. You've only got to read the blogs of people on the comp teams, and it clear even now its a world away from what it would end up being like if taken serisouly as an olympic sport. we're not talking about sharma cruising round Cali in an RV and popping in to crush the 1999 x-games. greater development in comps means more specialisation, which means less transferable skills, less days on the crag.

[slackline]

Compared to similar sports we have woeful levels of sponsorship. Why is complicated but I think it might give sponsors a kick up the arse.

Just been thinking about this too (after all its a Friday and no one works on Fridays, do they?) and don't think its too complicated (from my perspective and knowledge at least).

I think the main reason why the levels of sponsorship in climbing aren't as high as similar sports is simply that historically climbing has been a minority sport in comparision to others.  Thus there is not as much money available for sponsorship.

[Jaspersharpe]

I think that's pretty much balls. After all, as I said above most of the rising standards in sports climbing have come from people heavily into the comp circuit. They get plenty of time to hit the crags and onsight 8c all day.

That's just not true though. Patxi Usxbrioxtixilix was complaining (around the time he had that awesome day of ticking) that he hardly ever gets to climb outside because of the demands of the comp circuit. He's managing to push standards outside despite, not because of competitions.

I think the main reason why the levels of sponsorship in climbing aren't as high as similar sports is simply that historically climbing has been a minority sport in comparision to others.  Thus there is not as much money available for sponsorship.

But by definition "similar sports" are also minority sports. I think JB means the sponsorship is woeful in comparison to other sports which have a similar number of participants / amount of cash washing about. And if so I agree.

[Jaspersharpe]

Patxi only climbs on rock one month out of the year and asked about climbing 9b or 9b+ said........

The question I think isn't whether it is possible to do something or not. At the moment the problem is that we haven't got enough time for everything. We need to train for competitions, go to competitions, and only afterwards climb on rock. I decide to climb routes fast, or send hard routes, but always as fast as possible because I like climbing and two or three weeks, maybe a month, isn't enough to try a 9b or a 9b+. It’s because of this that I haven’t tried harder routes than La Rambla or other 8c+ or 9a's. I think it's possible to climb harder, but you need to invest a lot of time to succeed.

Competitions are holding him back from pushing the standard of climbing on rock to new levels.

[slackline]

But by definition "similar sports" are also minority sports. I think JB means the sponsorship is woeful in comparison to other sports which have a similar number of participants / amount of cash washing about. And if so I agree.

Ahh, I hadn't been reading between the lines.

[SA Chris]

Competitions are holding him back from pushing the standard of climbing on rock to new levels.

But if he wasn't doing all these the comps would he have sufficient levels of sponsorship to climb as much as he does? A tricky balance to strike.

A system of checks and balances in place, designed to screw you over.

[Stu Littlefair]

Dave - it's exactly my point that climbing training is well behind where it would be after years of Olympic competition. This would blow standards absolutely sky high compared to where we see them now.

Both you and Jasper make the point that this would mean more time training indoors and less time on the rock. For a start I'm not sure I buy this. Olympic athletes don't train for more of the year than the current comp climbers do, so it doesn't follow that the adoption of more professional training techniques mean less time available for climbing. And besides, if less time outdoors is what is required for optimal performance *on the crag*, then so be it.

Patxi is in many ways the perfect example of this. By the way, he climbs much more than one month a year outside. The quote Jasper gives, as well as my own brief conversation with him, suggests that he climbs outside for about 1/3rd of the year - but never in a block of longer than one month, after which he heads back inside to build up his standard with more training. Now I know he feels this gives him insufficient time to get stuck into redpointing ultra-hard projects, but you can't tell me that he hasn't raised standards with a straight face. And if he gave up the comps tomorrow, he'd still have that level to draw on. Plus, he sets the bar for those who are less into comps, which raises standards further. The top levels of performance like this drags up the standard eventually across the board...

Anyway, the summary of my position would be that climbing in the olympics would raise standards enormously, and not only for those who focussed on climbing as an olympic sport and never climbed outdoors, but for all of us. After all, we would all eventually benefit from novel training techniques and the expectations raised from them. If the cost of this is that a segment of the community focusses entirely on climbing indoors then so what? I don't see anyone expecting you to do the same, or that it would disadvantage you in any serious way. So apart from some bizarre UKC-esque notion that "climbing just isn't about that sort of thing" what possible beef can you have left?

[Bonjoy]

I might still have a tin of corned beef kicking about somewhere. Just how do you go about 'corning' beef  ?

[SA Chris]

I would rather not know.

[Jaspersharpe]

In the same interview I nicked that quote from he did actually say that he only climbs outside for one month of the year. It could be that there is something lost in translation / misquote and as you've got it from the horses mouth Stu, you're probably right.

On the rest, I'm still unconvinced. Certainly not because I have anything against a sector of the climbing community only climbing indoors (this already happens, who cares?) but because the already limited sponsorship will become even more limited for those not interested in / good at competing. The worry being that that may well eventually mean anyone who is actually spending any time climbing outdoors. The crossover can surely only become less the more the sports are specialised through proper training?

http://homecooking.about.com/od/beefrecipes/r/blbeef29.htm 

[nik at work]

Have to say I'm with Stu on this one. You'd struggle to find anyone less motivated for hardcore training and comps than myself but I think an Olympic bouldering event would work well and increase funding in the sport.
Swiming as a passtime co-exists with competitive swimming quite happily, and if passtime swimmers get some nice new pools to practice there dunking technique in off the back of Olympic funding then hooray. And by the same token if me and my mates get a big spanky new indoor wall to go to and drink coffee when its raining, then I'll not complain.

This "climbing not about that" nonsense is just complete bobbins. Climbing is just an activity, it is about climbing. In the same way that football is not all about "passion", but about kicking a bag of wind around a field. (I know that hasn't been mentioned here, but it comes up on UKC and annoys the tits off me so just wanted to get that of my chest)

The other benefit of it being in the Olympics (which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned) is that it might stop some people from automatically asking "Whats the highest you've been then? You done that Everest?" upon hearing that you climb...

[dave]

"do you do that with ropes then?"

[Stu Littlefair]

...because the already limited sponsorship will become even more limited for those not interested in / good at competing...

Perhaps, but doesn't this rather assume that sponsorship is a zero-sum game? It's just as likely that olympic climbing would raise the profile across the board, and hence more sponsorship money would become available for everything from boulder comps to himalayan ultra-slogs.

Thanks for the beef recipe

[Bonjoy]

 It seems likely to me that bouldering in the olympics would increase the popularity of bouldering. This might be good for climbing walls, but it would be bad news for already crowded bouldering areas which suffer from growing user related erosion and access problems.
I'd enjoy watching olympic bouldering, I agree it might result in more financial support for climbers of all disiplines, I also agree it might lead to improved standards. However on balance i don't think these positives are worth the cost to the crags.

[nik at work]

I know this isn't what you mean Bonjoy but that does smack a little bit of "we can climb, just not normal people".....

[Plattsy]

  Not sure your reply reads like you wished Bonjoy.

XC MTB is part of the Olympics. I'd be interested to find out how much money that creates for MTB riders and how much is used for trail improvements and erosion issues. Are XC MTB and climbing comparable in terms of numbers and impact on the environment?

[Bonjoy]

I know this isn't what you mean Nic but that does smack a little bit of conflating snobbery with unfortunate but unavoidable facts.
Unlike tennis where you can build new courts if the sport gets more popular, in climbing the meat of the sport for most people (the outdoor bit) relies on a finite number of crags. It's not a case of X is worthy of being a climber but Y isn't, it's purely a matter of numbers, of people be they X,Y or Z and numbers of crags. I.e it's not snobbery or elitism because I'm not talking about excluding 'normal people', I'm talking about not encouraging growth from any/all quarters.

[Munkii]

so i take it people can see where im coming from?

just a thought, if erosion is such a problem, with the olympics bringing newcomers to crags. then surely more crag care schemes will be set up and maybe even government funding for it?

[nik at work]

Bonjoy I tried to change the word "normal" for "others" after posting but it didn't work for some reason.
I'm afraid I disagree with your claim that excluding people isn't elitism. Simply put you are part of a club and you don't want there to be any more members. Whatever the reason for this opinion it is elitism. The fact that you are "not encouraging" as opposed to "actively discouraging" is a fine, dare I say insignificant, distinction.

I think there are positives and negatives to climbing being incorporated in the Olympics. In my opinion the positives win out, in yours they don't. Maybe one day we'll find out for sure....

[GCW]

My personal opinion is that the Olympics should only contain sports that are objective, not subjective.  ie who runs fastest, jump/throws farthest etc.  Not who is judged to be the best.  I'd strip out all the synchronised diving/ swimming etc etc.

Climbing/ bouldering could potentially meet that criteria.  However, I'm not sure I'd like it being an olympic sport.  Fence, truly sat upon.

[grumpycrumpy]

Would the crags bouldering areas really get that much more overworked ? ..... A few of the people I've chatted to at The Works have no or little intention of ever climbing outside , merely seeing ' bouldering' as a fun way to get fit  .... It's far more likely that the safe enviroment of an indoor wall will appeal to the general masses rather the scary , midge infested world that most of us  on here prefer .... And if people do enjoy it and want to take it further then why should anyone , let alone ourselves , discourage them .....  ....

[Bonjoy]

Assuming people in the near future are not magically more stupid than people today then it's reasonable to assume that the same or a similar ratio of indoor and outdoor climbing will remain. Even if it were to shift to a greater proportion indoors there would still be a net increase on the crags if a significant number of people were attracted to the sport.
As I see it bouldering is likely to continue to increase in popularity with things as they stand already. This is fine by me and I cetainly don't have a problem with new comers to the sport. I do have concerns about user pressure with current numbers. Given the choice of doing or not doing something which might hugely increase this pressure I'd choose not to. If this is considered by some as selfish and elitist then so be it. Personally I'd question whether it's not more selfish to do something you don't have to do in the knowledge that it might spoil crags and remove access for the climbers of tommorrow.

[grumpycrumpy]

You make a valid point , but hopefully people will become educated in the same way we were .... In that we were intoduced into this sport by someone with knowledge of the do's and do not's ..... It's a difficult one .... 

[Paul B]

You make a valid point , but hopefully people will become educated in the same way we were .... In that we were intoduced into this sport by someone with knowledge of the do's and do not's ..... It's a difficult one .... 

Thats already not the case, you can see examples of this by heading down to the works and looking at the wide spread of people they attract many of whom I would never of previously associated with climbing.

[grumpycrumpy]

Exactly , you see people down The Works that you wouldn't normally associate with climbing .... How many of the same people do you see out on the crags ?

[Johnny Brown]

Assuming people in the near future are not magically more stupid than people today then it's reasonable to assume that the same or a similar ratio of indoor and outdoor climbing will remain.

I don't think this prediction is very likely given the way the ratio has changed over the last 20 years: At first no walls= no indoor climbers. The more walls= the more indoor climbers.

Even if it were to shift to a greater proportion indoors there would still be a net increase on the crags if a significant number of people were attracted to the sport.

I am sure this will be the case, however I think it may be a suprisingly small increase. I've certainly seen the crags close to Sheffield get markedly quieter in marginal conditions since The Works opened. The flipside is more folk on the crags in primo conditions, that seems unavoidable given the change in the popularity of bouldering just within climbing as a whole. I'm not convinced climbing as a whole is growing anywhere near as fast.

[Paul B]

Exactly , you see people down The Works that you wouldn't normally associate with climbing .... How many of the same people do you see out on the crags ?

Enough to worry me.