As the Olympics draws to a close I caught a glimpse of the Synchronized swimming on TV and remembered the article Guy Holwill wrote eariler in the year...

Climbing is debuting as a demonstration sport at the Beijing Olympics this year. Whilst we all find the idea of competition climbing pretty straightforward, what do you think the average sports fan think? Let’s first have a look at some the established events that uphold the Olympics ideals of “Faster, Higher, Stronger”.

Is climbing just another stupid sport?

_________________
Climb ZA - Administrator

Hey Justin

There are like minded people out there. Check out this link that someone sent me yesterday.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 75,00.html

Cheers

Guy

_________________
There's no point being pessimistic, because it probably won't work

Let's try again... From Time.com

There's no question they're athletic, these muscled, agile women competing in Beijing. But the question remains: Should synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics remain Olympics sports? Both disciplines came of age in a not-so-distant era when women weren't allowed to lift weights or pole vault or compete in the triathlon — all of which were inaugurated as female Olympic sports only as recently as 2000. (In the first modern Olympics in 1896, women were excluded altogether.) But today, with Title IX — the education amendment that allocates funds equally between genders — an entrenched part of American schools, and even Afghan and Omani women competing in the 100m dash, does it make sense to keep a pair of women-only sports in the Olympics?

I think not. The problem with both events, in my mind, is that the girly bits overshadow the athletic parts. Synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics involve such copious amounts of cosmetics that they make a Texas beauty pageant look sedate. Yes, thighs strain with effort, but I'm distracted by the twirling toes and the bleached teeth framed by rictus smiles. And the accoutrements of rhythmic gymnastics — the hoop, the swirling ribbon — divert from the balletic grace of the athletes.

At the synchronized swimming duet final on August 20, a pair of Chinese twins (Jiang Tingting and Jiang Wenwen), who came in fourth overall, performed a four-minute routine entitled "Little Birds Jumping and Flying Happily." During their turn, the Canadians blew water from their mouths, as if they were comely fountains spouting water. The Russians, who took the gold with straight 10s for technical merit, wore swimsuits with such variegated sequins that I failed to take note of what the two Anastasias (Ermakova and Davydova) were actually doing. I know immense physicality and endurance is involved in each routine, and that the smiles mask burning lungs. The Russians, for instance, are known to practice eight hours a day. But effort — and a discreet set of nose-clips — doesn't make it worthy of being an Olympic sport.

As with synchronized swimming, rhythmic gymnastics was added as an Olympic sport at the Los Angeles Games in 1984. The sartorial rules are strict: leotards must not stray into, god forbid, tutu territory. A brazen flash of a bra strap can even result in points subtracted from the gymnast's score. Curiously, in each Olympics, one of the five apparatuses isn't contested. In Athens, the clubs, which look like a pair of brightly hued bowling pins, didn't make an appearance. This year, it's the bouncy ball that's missing. Rhythmic gymnastics is certainly mesmerizing, but Cirque de Soleil mixed with a touch of the Bolshoi doesn't deserve a spot at the Games. Similarly, a budding campaign to make yoga an Olympic discipline should be quashed.

Currently, the only Olympic sport in which men compete and women don't is in boxing. (Baseball is only for men, but it has a female counterpart, softball. And, in any case, both sports will be eliminated from the Games after this Olympics.) My suggestion: Get rid of synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics and bring in women's boxing. In Athens, women's wrestling was added for the first time. The sport now has an enthusiastic international following, from Japan and Kazakhstan to Spain and Canada. Outside of the Olympics, women's boxing is already a serious sport. If it is embraced by the International Olympic Committee for London 2012, a decision that would likely be made by the end of this year, the Games would achieve true equity. That should elicit some true joy, not a fleet of forced smiles.

_________________
There's no point being pessimistic, because it probably won't work

I had no idea it was a demo sport this time around? Who's taking part?

check out the crowds and media hype around the mammut bouldering championships in SLC on http://www.momentumvm.com/. now i've never been to a synchronized swimming meet but i reckon this sport is more of a crowd pleaser. climbing comps are pretty big events in other countries.

Now that the Olympics have finished with another huge Chinese PR excercise, has anyone seen any reports anywhere on what happened in the competition climbing?

_________________
Inspiration exists, but it must find you working. – Pablo Picasso

Climbing is pretty stupid if you analyse it from a purely rational perspective (although not nearly as stupid as half of the crap people write here! ), that said heaven forbid it should be seen as stupid enough to be included in the bloody olympics! Some Brit is also pushing to have skateboarding included in 2012! How the heck they plan to provide a level playing field for skating is way beyond me.

The Olympic comittee is desperate to add some cool factor to their programme, having finally woken up to the glaring obvious fact that their programme holds absolutely zip interest for the young hip youth of today. Climbers should be asking the question 'what benefit does inclusion in the Olympics have for climbing?'. Its clear that the Olympics stands to gain a great deal by including 'extreme' sports in its programme. But we need to exam what effect that will have on our sports.

How will they provide a clear and equal climbing objective for the participants to tackle. Will this involve a set standard wall that can be replicated worldwide for people to practice on? No ways I hear you cry - the climbers would simply wire the moves and all would send, how then will they judge the contest, on speed? But if the wall is unseen and totally individual that opens a huge can of worms, the host country will simply build whatever form and type of route favours their climbers best. How then will the routes/problems be 'equal for all', a dictate of all olympic events. Most top climbers are professional sponsored athletes, from where does the Olympic comittee expect to draw their field of amateur athletes?

There are less problems facing the inclusion of climbing than skateboarding (a renegade activity), at least there is a world cup circuit from which to build a model. But the very nature of the 'extreme sports' sits outside of the core criteria by which the olympic events are judged. I say let them keep their stoopid leotards. Climbing really doesnt need them to be sustainable or to grow. It is just the establishment trying to hip, and the effect on our sports will be to whitewash them, water them down for the consumption of the masses. Both activities have for me long represented a way to step outside the humdrum of mainstream consumer society and find some freedom (however brief and imaginary this may be). I sincerely hope climbers, and skaters, will see reason and steer well clear of the dilution (deletion?) of spirit that involvement with a Big Brother establishment like the Olypmic comitte will bring. - but probably not

a renegade activity that has influenced pop culture more than James Dean ever did! skating is hardly renegade anymore. it is very real


What's 'hip' about climbing? Maybe when the Olympic committee goes to a couple of club meetings they'll see how 'hip' a sport it is
The 60's revival is only gonna happen in 12 years. For now, the correct 80's term would be "tre' wicked rad cool"
How will it 'water it[sic] down'? Hopefully it would expose the world to the sport which might then help those non-climbers to see the amazing benefit of the sport which in turn could make access easier, gear cheaper [more climbers] and it might even help to develop the women's side of the sport, where climbing has been male dominated for decades. The mountains belong to everyone, and I for one would love to see more people out climbing.


I dunno man, it's just a really cool global sporting event. I think you're making too much of it with the Big Brother vibe. The more activities we can have the better. We should have them all, skating, MTB, climbing...even skydiving. The world has changed and is changing. These fringe niche sports always need a good boost now and then. Just look at the progress that any form of competition brings to a situation. It got us to the moon didnt it?

I think it would be good to have climbing included into the olympics.

Large scale comercialisim can boost the growth of a sport. Look at something like surfing, which has grown enormously through large scale commercial competitions which enaple more Pro's to exist, who can in turn take the activity to new heights. Do you think surfers and skaters would be pulling the moves they do nowdays if it was not for people like Kelly Slater, and Tony Hawk spending all day every day doing what they love, pushing the limits of what was thought possible, and not having to worry about feeding and clothing themselfs.

This is only possible if they can becom fully sponsored pro's, and the sponsors need comps and events watched by lots of people to make it worth while to sponsor a person.

If we have more full time climbers, harder routes will get sent. Thus lifting the average abilities of all climbers. That is growth.

As far as how do the level the playing field, well there is a world cup circut, and it appears to work alright.

I do however think that, like in Surfing, a line has to be drawn between doing the activity for your sole, and competing in a competition. The two almost become 2 differant activities, Comps and fun.

_________________
Feel the Qui

Caring enough about strangers competing, to watch any sporting event is intresting. I could understand if you personaly knew the people. What makes us care who wins the 100m sprint? Why do we watch rugby, cricket or soccer? How do we choose 'our' team?

Ja, thats just it Marshal. Nationism... I have a problem with that. In reality its just individuals who actually compete. What then is the point in the Olympics? Is the World Cup not enough of a goal for comp climbers to aim for? Also isnt the Olympics amateur only? Or did I miss a change in their tune. That automatically counts out all of the top present day athletes! How representative is the competition going to be if that is the case? You may see a few incredible climbing gyms being built, although not for a very long time in this country. There may well be funding made available for the development of previously disadvantaged climbers, although I suspect the powers that be may have their hearts and wallets set on other sports, even if this development takes place, when will those athletes reach a competitive standard?

Im playing the devils advocate here, being negative, but probably also realistic. The amount of time money and energy that will be required to get an olympic squad together could most likely be used to find explore and develop fifty new climbing areas, something that really would benefit climbing in this country. If we had such a huge resource of developed rock available overseas cllimbers would give SA serious consideration when planning their next trip. The cross pollination of knowledge and talent that would result from a massive influx of foreign climbers, would uplift the level of climbing in this country, way more than the specialised training a few elite athletes would receive for the olympics ever will.

Ja... I reckon stick to the roots, get outdoors and your thing! Bugger the Olympics, you wont see any IOC officials tying in at your local anytime soon!!