[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.