[Bonjoy]

 My dad was on climbing courses as a youth with Joe Brown as instructor. He reckons Joe was a crap instructor, lacking patience. On one occasion on a multi-pitch t'old man was taking a while to reach the belay, so a peeved Joe lowered a loop of slack down and got him to tie some of his fags on so he could have a smoke while he belayed. Can't see the Gresh doing that mind.

[Paul B]

My dad was on climbing courses as a youth with Joe Brown as instructor. He reckons Joe was a crap instructor, lacking patience. On one occasion on a multi-pitch t'old man was taking a while to reach the belay, so a peeved Joe lowered a loop of slack down and got him to tie some of his fags on so he could have a smoke while he belayed. Can't see the Gresh doing that mind.

ok so not everybody will be suitable for workshops, but there are now a fair few climbers offering these services, gresham, earl, james , katherine to name but a few.

What I was trying to say is that this arrangement is probably arrived at between the BMC and climbing wall owners so it is mutually beneficial to both sides.  Somebody who knows more about this may correct me if I'm wrong. 

Im unsure if any such arrangement existis, i'm sure ive overheard previously that people are unwilling to host comps such as the bbc's because it isnt (as?) profitable to them.

Sorry, I should have read your post more carefully. ........
 .................It just came across as little arrogant to suggest that being good at something should mean that somebody who you doesn't know you, or has any interest in your climbing, should make financial sacrifices themselves so that you can train. If this is not what you meant then I apologise again, but that's how I read it.

Hence the disclaimer at both the top and bottom of the original post 

[Bonjoy]

 Just cos Joe was crap doesn't mean all hard climbers are bad teachers. SFs post just reminded me of him.

[Somebody's Fool]

I believe your disclaimer also stated that you wanted to start a debate.  I am just stating possible reasons why the privileges that you believe outdoor climbers should be entitled to are not being delivered as present.
As an average climber I have no real frame of reference about gaining sponsorship or pushing the sport to it's limits.  I am happy to pay for the climbing that I do, and it does get my goat a bit when people who claim to be passionate about something then start whingeing about not getting enough money from others to help them to do it. 
I believe if you are getting sustained exposure for your outside exploits you will be offered rewards. Albeit within the limited financial restraints of the climbing industry.

[AndiT]

 

[Paul B]

I believe your disclaimer also stated that you wanted to start a debate.  I am just stating possible reasons why the privileges that you believe outdoor climbers should be entitled to are not being delivered as present.

Woah there... I merely quoted the disclaimer as an apology if my point of view did in fact come across as arrogant, as it certainly wasn't intended to be.

I believe if you are getting sustained exposure for your outside exploits you will be offered rewards. Albeit within the limited financial restraints of the climbing industry.

.......with sponsorship being given to people who have never performed to a high standard indoors or out!

what i was trying to suggest was that if the above wasnt the case then the limited financial restraints could then be increased even if only by a modest amount?

[Nibile]

my coach is very happy about his funds.
hes found a completely obsessed climber, who, at a respectable age, had the great idea of trying to become good. or at least strong. ora t least not weak.
so, now all he has to do, to receive his amount of money, is spend five minutes every two months to write down an email to said obsessed idiot, full of numbers and ridiculous routines.
hes a lucky guy.
 

btw, and seriously, i really understand you, paul.

[Somebody's Fool]

Might have got a the wrong end of the stick.  Thought you were using the disclaimer to discount what I said. Soz.

what i was trying to suggest was that if the above wasnt the case then the limited financial restraints could then be increased even if only by a modest amount?



I agree with you on this but I think it is at the mercy of what sponsors deem worth sponsoring.  They're always going to put profits before physical standards.

[Paul B]

Might have got a the wrong end of the stick.  Thought you were using the disclaimer to discount what I said. Soz.

No problem, things said in forums can be easily taken the wrong way as we've seen by nearly all of Buoux's posts 

I was speaking to a strong female climber the other day who had turned down sponsorship as she did not feel she deserved it, I thought that was a pretty noble thing to have done.

Your correct, businesses will always do what is most profitable for them, I just cant seem to understand how some none performers receive sponsorship as they can not provide anything worthwile to their sponsors if they have no exposure whatsoever?

[r-man]

Your correct, businesses will always do what is most profitable for them, I just cant seem to understand how some none performers receive sponsorship as they can not provide anything worthwile to their sponsors if they have no exposure whatsoever?

They obviously had a good pitch, and the knack of selling themselves. Though it might seem to you that there is no commercial reward, it must have seemed otherwise (and perhaps continues to seem otherwise) to the business involved. Whoever you are talking about clearly saw an opportunity and took it. Good luck to them.

I was speaking to a strong female climber the other day who had turned down sponsorship as she did not feel she deserved it, I thought that was a pretty noble thing to have done.

Perhaps there's more to it, but on the face of it, this just seems a little daft. 

After all, there's always going to be someone stronger, someone fitter. Do the best you can, and you deserve whatever you can get. Haven't you seen Karate Kid?

[Paul B]

Perhaps there's more to it, but on the face of it, this just seems a little daft. 

  Do you honestly think someone is daft because they haven't exploited a situation to their own benefit? probably believing that the resources would be better used elsewhere? I myself see this as an honourable thing to have done and certainly not something to be ridiculed.

Whoever you are talking about clearly saw an opportunity and took it. Good luck to them.

I think this is a very bad philosophy to have, take anything you can because you can 

Oh and of course i've seen it, who hasnt?, Wax On... Wax off... (ive even seen the poor sequel involving a female karate kid)

[AndiT]

Surely there is always someone more deserving. I think it's weird that she didn't take it and I would read from it that there must have been something more to it that she didn't want to comit to, i.e. a clause saying she had to get so many photo's in a mag or climb so many hard routes. Maybe I'm completely wrong but it seems a funny excuse to me. Maybe I'm just don't understand nobility!

As for these others who are undeservedly sponsored, you need to spill the beans, you obviously know more and it's winding you up.

There are a lot of different levels of sponsorship, from getting the odd pair of boots through to full blown salaried athletes. So someone can claim to be sponsored who is simply a friend of a gear distributor, it doesn't mean anything.

The worry is that some climbers begin to associate their success with the rewards they get i.e. I climb better than him but he gets more freebies than me and so jealousy creeps in and an ulterior motive to climbing.

Climbing should be reward itself. If you're lucky, know the right people and do the right things at the right times you might get some gifts, but if you don't, it means nothing.

Andi

[Paul B]

Surely there is always someone more deserving. I think it's weird that she didn't take it and I would read from it that there must have been something more to it that she didn't want to comit to, i.e. a clause saying she had to get so many photo's in a mag or climb so many hard routes. Maybe I'm completely wrong but it seems a funny excuse to me. Maybe I'm just don't understand nobility!

I don't believe there was any such clause but then again I could be wrong. Just out of interest why do you class it in any way as an excuse rather than a decision?

[Somebody's Fool]

I think that it can be a well infrmed decision to turn down or not pursue sponsorship.  I remember Gib quizzing Ryan about why on earth he wasn't sponsored, to which he replied, 'If I had fancy quickdraws people would expect me to climb instead of sitting around smoking tabs.'  A good answer I thought.

[r-man]

Do you honestly think someone is daft because they haven't exploited a situation to their own benefit? probably believing that the resources would be better used elsewhere? I myself see this as an honourable thing to have done and certainly not something to be ridiculed.

Resources better used elsewhere? We're talking about getting a bit of money to help pay for climbing trips, not raping the rainforest. What I can't really get my head round is this idea that anyone deserves any money in the first place. So someone is the best climber in the world, that's great - but I don't see how the world owes them a living.

Take what I do. I write things. Now if I look at the bestseller lists I see a lot of writers who I don't think are that good. I'm pretty sure I can write better than that (it's not hard!). But I don't begrudge these people their millions. If I wanted the same success, then I know I'd have to join the game - write something trashy and try and market myself. These days being a marketable personality is a big part of the business.

Money is part of business. If you want money, you're going to have to play the game. Otherwise, do what you do and let your achievments be their own reward.

I think this is a very bad philosophy to have, take anything you can because you can 

Sorry, I just don't see sponsorship for climbers as being that important. For many reasons that other people have already covered, I don't think climbing or climbers need more money. I certainly don't think anyone deserves any money. If money is being handed out to people who really need it, there are poor people, ill people, hungry people, cold people all around the world...

I can see that you feel passionately that the standard of British Climbing could be improved if money was pushed in the right directions. This is probably why we are disagreeing - speaking as a punter, this just isn't something I worry about. I'm more than inspired by the current standards, which I'm sure will continue to keep improving.

[Paul B]

If money is being handed out to people who really need it, there are poor people, ill people, hungry people, cold people all around the world...

I think that goes slightly outside the scope of 'Funding Issues Within Climbing'. 

Resources better used elsewhere? We're talking about getting a bit of money to help pay for climbing trips, not raping the rainforest. What I can't really get my head round is this idea that anyone deserves any money in the first place. So someone is the best climber in the world, that's great - but I don't see how the world owes them a living.

I can see that you feel passionately that the standard of British Climbing could be improved if money was pushed in the right directions. This is probably why we are disagreeing - speaking as a punter, this just isn't something I worry about. I'm more than inspired by the current standards, which I'm sure will continue to keep improving.

The fact of the matter is that sponsorship does exist even if you don't see it as important. One of the points I have tried to convey is that in my opinion what little resources are available are in part mis-placed and I know you say "Well there must be something in it for the company" but in some cases I fail to see how, and that bugs me. (sorry Andi, still wont be drawn into names I cant see it helping and if it starts getting repetitive i'll just have to let the topic die out)
I don't know if the original post has come off in a way to suggest that I believe top climbers are necessarily owed a living, I simply believe that if sponsorship or whatever is available (no matter how little it may be) it should be at their disposal and not people who have sold themselves well.

[r-man]

I simply believe that if sponsorship or whatever is available (no matter how little it may be) it should be at their disposal and not people who have sold themselves well.

Yes well, we're going in circles again. But fair play - this issue obviously means a lot to you and you clearly want things to change. I'm not sure how you can do that (or if it's necessary) but if it's something you believe in, then good for you. Getting people talking is a good start.

[AndiT]

Paul B: That's fair enough not mentioning names. It something that I know happens for a fact anyway. I've spoken this week to someone who works for a climbing company who has told me that this is the case. He has looked through the books and has seen names in there that simply mean nothing to him, the company and the climbing world as a whole. People who at one point have been thrown a bone and have simply kept hold of it! It happens, it's just a matter of organisation.

I know that money is very hard to get from climbing, but don't think this is a bad thing. If people are getting paid to climb and aren't coming up with the goods, then there is going to be a lot more bulling going on.

I imagine a fair few people decide not to take sponsorship for the same reason that SF mentioned earlier, as there will be an inherent pressure to perform. I personally think that if you are an honest climber and climb for your own motives then these people would be fine. Ryan can sit and smoke as many tabs as he likes, but at the end of it all he would still climb the hard routes and do it for himself and so the sponsors would be happy...

[Bonjoy]

I bet the truth of the matter is that Ryan's anti-orthodox attitude to hard climbing is just the sort of apathy-chic image that some outdoor brands would like to benefit by association with.

[Somebody's Fool]

Ryan Pasquill Marlboro Man anyone? I hear his horse riding skills are exemplary...

[Doylo]

he's an awesome speed boat driver too

[Bonjoy]

Has he got a pilot's licence?

[Somebody's Fool]

If he has it sounds like the people at Milk Tray could do a lot worse than get in touch with him.

[AndiT]

Ryan: "Deliver Milk Tray to hot chicks? Nar, would rather sit around smokin tabs"

[andy_e]

I heard some story about him not being sponsored because he couldn't be arsed to fill out the form or something like that...