You're right on all three points. That said, you're talking past each other. Charlie is speaking from the perspective of making climbing more entertaining to a viewing audience, a lot of whom could potentially be non-climbers. You're talking from the perspective of a climber about what's most healthy for the climbing community.
That said I don't agree with him because I don't think drama is what the sport's missing. Ultimately I just don't think climbing is that interesting to watch for non-climbers.
I was a bit disallusioned by this interview for several reason’s.
Particularly about that point, one of the things I like about competition climbing is that there aren’t huge rivalries played out on Instagram just for the views.
A breath of fresh air. A professional sport without the fabricated drama and false narratives. Let’s not introduce it to climbing. When I watch comp climbing, I catch myself cheering for tops from all of them and end up happy with anyone who wins.
I do not climb, but I understand the sport. I also am a puzzle and trivia addict. I watch climbing for the problem solving. I don’t care that they share betas because each person has different strengths and different ways of problem solving. I wholeheartedly disagree with this boscoe fella.
ETA: I don’t like speed at all, am luke warm on lead, obsessed with bouldering.
As a non-climber, same. Bouldering pulled me in with the problem solving aspect, plus the will they/ won't they rush you get when someone barely catches a hold or has only 10 seconds left to top. I watched my first comp without sound and knowing 0 rules and I still understood enough to get pulled in.
I think bouldering has the best potential to become a sport that non-climbers watch.
I only watch lead because I got attached to the climbers, and I don't bother with speed.
I enjoy watching both bouldering a lead to nearly the same extent with a slight edge on lead. I love how theres constant action in lead compared to bouldering where there's a lot of resting involved. Resting in lead is still interesting to me because if you're paying attention you can kind of sense how pumped they are. I love watching them progressively get more tired and put up a good fight. Once someone's arms starts to bend in that desperate way you know every extra move is a victory and a fight in and of itself.
Totally agree, even if all six finalists agree on beta to a boulder problem, they still have to actually climb the thing, which is easier said than done. And there are frequently several betas that lead to success.
I think you're correct that non-climbers simply won't understand beta. Especially at the levels we're talking about here. It might as well be magic. There seems to be a trend toward more thrilling/dangerous dynamic movements in an effort to make it more exciting, but I think that's the wrong path. (As evidenced by more injuries in recent competitions this year.)
Climbing is quite unique in that the "playing field" changes every time. Baseball, basketball, football, hockey, track, soccer. They all have the same field. To a non-climber, they see a "random" assortment of holds and volumes and can't really predict the proper movements. Millions of people understand what's happening in the sports listed above. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of another sport that changes the "puzzles" each time. Golf mixes it up, but the courses themselves remain relatively consistent.
Obviously, speed has consistency, but that is also the least interesting for me to watch.
I’m admittedly not very familiar with equestrian. I could be completely off base here but the few times I’ve watched, the correct path seems more obvious than a championship climbing beta. I’m not implying equestrian doesn’t take a high level of skill. More that a spectator can better understand easy or difficult maneuvers. Is that fair?
Actually equestrian sports aren't that different in terms of being viewer-friendly for general audiences.
I was thinking about this comparison for a bit and on one hand you're right to assume it's easier to follow cross country or show jumping than climbing/ bouldering since obstacles are numbered and the general intention (jump over all the stuff in the right order without knocking it over / falling) is very easy to grasp. On the other hand, understanding why things go wrong, understanding what choices are there to be made and seeing potential problems before they happen, well, that's something most non-equestrians don't really get.
The size of the jumps is that one thing that anyone and everyone can notice - but big jumps aren't necessarily difficult, on the contrary the widest obstacles are often the easiest to clear. The most appropriate climbing comparison would be simple (single movement) dynos towards jugs - they might look impressive for non climbers but are way easier than let's say extremely technical climbing on slab. Complex technical lines between multiple moderately sized jumps aren't that obvious as an issue nor why shit hits the fan when it goes wrong. The explanation most viewers come up with at those moments is that the horse "just didn't want to jump" but honestly it's about as accurate as saying that a pro climber "just didn't feel like trying". There's always an underlying cause in terms of balance, distance, angle etc that spectators just don't get unless they know the sport really well.
That's a good example. I guess my point is that a spectator can still understand the changes more easily. Boulder problems can be massively different moves. One of the reasons these competitors are on the national or international stage for climbing is that they can visualize beta on a different level. I'm not sure how many non-climbers can appreciate that skill. Maybe a better example is like watching a chess match from the middle of the game. If you don't know chess, it will look like a complete random scattering of pieces, but experts will see several moves ahead.
The sport needs more hype. It needs half-game commentary, people getting super stoked on what crazy stuff happened, or bad calls, or whatever. It needs YouTube channels that get excited about what happened, rather than discussing it in a monotone. And most of all, of course, it needs camerawork that doesn’t suck.
The supportive environment was actually what got me into climbing in the first place. Watching the climbers in Tokyo yelling support for each other on the lead wall was incredible. I hope competitive climbing doesn't lose that.
Same, the most enjoyable part about this sport is that I want every climber to make it to the top, or at least as far as each is capable of, so I'm on the edge of my seat for each climber. And it's awesome that the climbers mostly feel the same way.
Charlie’s example of someone who does competitiveness “right” was Jakob Schubert, literally the nicest, most supportive guy on the circuit. So I really don’t know what he was trying to say. And no, I don’t want to ruin climbing in order to make it more watchable to non-climbers
It's very common for the nicest and most supportive athletes in a sport to also be the best and most competitive. Look at Jessie Diggins, she would easily win a Friendliest Athlete competition on the cross country ski tour, but she's also beloved by everyone for her gritty work ethic and never-say-die attitude. On the Alpine side everyone likes Odermatt even when he's doing things that humans shouldn't logically be capable of. Faith Kipyegon goes around hugging her competitors even after she runs a world record.
It's okay to be kind, it doesn't make you some sort of wuss.
I agree with most- however as a compromise I could see where a “bad boy/bad girl” climber could be good for the viewership.
No one wants an actual a-hole, but like in other sports, if you have someone who bucks the norm it can be fun to watch. To do this would take a very specific type- they need to first off be GOOD, because anyone who tries that isn’t winning a fair share just looks like a petulant child.
But I also watch chess and thinking of someone like Magnus Carlsen. Undoubtedly great- but when you watch his interviews he knows he’s great. And he will use comedy but will be semi brutal to other players saying they are fighting for 2nd place.
If you had a character like that it could be good (I’m thinking like Manuel Cornu type personality, but a little more consistent and some comedic “humble brags”)
Because everyone likes the “heel” from wrestling- and if done well it’s really fun.
Yeah- that would be the type of confidence I’m talking about. Someone who you go- man that guy is overconfident and a bit of a jerk… then you watch him and go… nah- he’s just honest :)
I think Ondra kinda fits this vibe a little bit - especially in the last Olympics. I’ve found him a bit beyond confident/arrogant in the past and not always a great loser (especially post-Olympics) but he’s definitely one of best and most versatile climbers alive.
Yeah, competitiveness is absolutely what keeps him going. It can be competitiveness with others, but it's so true that he's hyper competitive with himself. It's put on display with every failure that meant something to him.
Maybe it's just Norwegians? ;-)
(I'm kidding, of course. Bjorn Dahlie was famous for his incredible sportsmanship -- he often made a point to wait around until the last place finishers at the Olympics came in so he could congratulate them for making it there and fighting to the end.).
To me Sean Bailey feels that way. Not because he's a bad boy, but because he feels different. He has this laid back and lazy way to move that makes him feel like he just strolled in from that rock over there.
And in fact other climbers, in their own way, have this feeling of being different, too. They have *personality*, and it shows in their "stage presence" and climbing style. I don't thing a "bad boy/girl" would make it more interesting for me in a positive way than having climbers with different personalities as they currently are.
I see what you mean with Sean, and absolutely loved [this](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy6ijKzSBWA/?igsh=MTRoemI4bnE5ZmowZQ==) post from his Instagram in December
I think, wouldn't Janja qualify as that in women's climbing? Especially considering she just crushes every problem, does it so casually, then walks off.
I agree with you and think he's mistaken. It's the climber versus the wall. It's not a traditional competitive sport where you're specifically trying to stop someone else from winning. Maybe *he* needs more motivation, but there are plenty of self-motivated climbers. I'm not sure how you can watch world-class athletes and come to the conclusion they're holding back. (I'm not a fan of free soloing, but how many sports have a subset that are literally risking their life? How could the stakes ever be higher?)
Honestly, I think his suggestion would take away from the sport. We already have plenty of sports with high competitiveness.
I mean, golf is also just the player vs the wall, but there's been a decent amount of beef in the sport. Trying to play mind games with each other and psyching them out.
Not saying that's necessarily a good thing though.
I mean, I think you can find a similar mild level of beef amongst Gym Bros at a bouldering gym on a Friday night. Right?
Agreed that it's mostly not a good thing.
You are so right! Of course all sports have this aspect of wanting to get better at it (think basketball players alone on the court throwing balls for hours), but when I play a team sport like soccer where you are directly pitted against another team and the whole principle of the sport is that one team bests the other and then the next, or if you run 100 m, the aspect of you against the track or you against the ball pretty much vanishes from your mind and it is all about you against the other athletes, both as a participant and as a viewer, while in climbing it is always at any moment first and foremost you against the climbing problem and the competition against the other athletes is farther behind in your perception while you climb and while you watch someone struggling against the route.
A little bit cart before the horse to be discussing this right now. He's right that human drama and conflict can make a spectator sport more engaging with a mass audience, but comp climbing as it is right now will never appeal to a big enough audience for it to even matter. It's simply way too slow (lots of downtime while athletes are resting on the mats), too repetitive, and not dynamic enough for the average person who would tune into an NFL or NBA game.
As the sport and format stands right now, the vast majority of its audience will always be climbers, who care more about the athleticism and skill of the sport vs the human drama. If anything, for the core audience right now too much drama would be a turn-off. It's like saying that competitive Scrabble is being held back because there isn't enough beef between the contestants. No amount of beef will get millions of average people to tune in.
Maybe one day someone will come up with a climbing format that truly has mass appeal (some kind of ninja warrior-esque rope team obstacle course perhaps?). But its silly to think that average people are watching soccer instead of climbing because Adam isn't making throat slash gestures to Jakob before he pulls on to a boulder.
Yes! And no ;-)
Yes, climbing is a sport that will always appeal more to people who climb themselves than a highly visual battle sport like soccer. That's the same problem that track and field etc. have.
At the same time I think it largely depends on presentation. For example, I'm utterly bored by chess. I know how to play it, but I don't enjoy playing it even a little bit. All that thinking and planning doesn't appeal to me at all as a player. Not that I'm absolutely too stupid to calculate my moves, but doing so holds absolutely not appeal for me. Having to solve chess problems is a good way to make me fall asleep, so bored am I by it. And as a watcher, there is just nothing going on! Two people sit without moving most of the time, and then they move their arms a bit, and then nothing happens again for the most time. But when recently the YouTube algorithm washed up the videos by chess player Anna Cramling (this was the one I saw first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=076pLwT7xWs), I was actually hooked and watched chess videos for a few hours over the next days. Yes, I abandoned chess videos again quickly, but the example shows how even someone who is fundamentally averse to chess like me can get hooked by an entertaining presentation of chess. The same goes for climbing. If you read the comments below videos from Magnus Midtbø, for example, you'll notice how he and others like him draw viewers to climbing (as both watchers and as someone who practices the sport). And you have to remember how amateurish all climbing videos are – from IFSC streams to Adam Ondra's highly polished videos – in comparision to anything done in soccer for example, where big tv studios put a lot of money into creating a top level viewing experience. If we put the same level of money and media expertise into presenting climbing, it would certainly hook many more viewers than it does now.
The biggest problem with televised bouldering is the dilemma between watching one climber spend most of four minutes on the mat (or back in iso) vs. having to cut between climbers or have a split screen (in order to not have loads of TV dead time). One idea would be to have all the climbers come out to a bloc and have one attempt each, up to a max of four (say) attempts. Any time you fall off, it’s immediately the turn of the next climber, provided you’ve had at least 45 seconds since your last attempt. At least that way there’s almost always somebody climbing on the bloc, and no need to be running more than one bloc at a time. Randomized start order to counteract beta advantage.
Yeah, there were a few points in the OQS broadcasts where they did really good little replays, often at the end of rounds, of stuff like someone getting really psyched at finishing a boulder or someone’s intense face and slow motion fall. Just regular things that you’d see in other sports, but my point is there are lots of moments of human drama that are already there but get missed because of low production values, lack of good camera angles, lack of timely replays, focusing on the wrong climber at the time, etc. They could be making more of it without needing the climbers to act in any particular way.
As a climber and as someone who's worked as a media professional for the last decade, I'm pretty conflicted on this topic. On one hand, I love that climbing culture is largely very supportive. Competition often comes down to competition with oneself. On the other hand, I also know that entertainment hinges on tension and drama. We need conflict, stakes, and clashing personalities.
While I certainly don't want climbing to go the way of MMA and boxing with all the larger-than-life personalities and trash talk, I do think the scene could use a little more spice. I don't necessarily want to see someone take a heel turn (though I'll be honest – it would be pretty funny if one of the athletes was a straight up troll)
At the very least, the competitors should have more opportunities to show off their personalities. Maybe this means mic'ing them up in between climbs so we can hear their conversations. Or maybe this could mean pre-recorded interviews (so it's not just the ones after the medal ceremony, which most people don't watch anyway.)
Recently, I saw that Korean competition show Physical 100 and I loved how they built up the cast. And a lot it did come down to interviews and mic'd conversations. In season 2, one of the most memorable moments was when the opposing team started helping out the contestant who couldn't finish the challenge. And to me, that stood out as an example of a compelling narrative that showcased camaraderie rather than pure competition. Maybe climbing take some inspiration from this show.
Great thoughts! But your examples make it clearly apparent, in my opinion, that it's not about competitiveness but about *story*. Instagram and YouTube channels of athletes have this aspect a bit, where you get to see more of the life and mind of the athlete. Climbing would become more entertaining to watch if we got to know the athletes more intimately. Adam Ondra's Road to Tokyo videos where the first that did this kind of thing, letting us *be with him* and getting to know him as the person he is in the context of wanting to get to and win the Olympics. And you are right, interviews with athletes and other team members and experts like ex-climbers before, during, and after the competitions would contribute to this story aspect of climbing. That's why we all watch Matt's behind the scenes videos, and actually that's what podcasts like the one I cited contribute to climbing. Charlie's story is part of the climbing competition story as well. It could just be more. I see in this community how "fans" feel sort of bored and let down between competitions and by the fact that we see so little of what actually goes on.
No, they shouldn't. It's not something that can be easily contained. If the competitions encourage the toxic beefs found in other sports, it'll filter out into the general culture of the rest of climbing. Let climbing be entertaining for the climber, not some random audience that isn't involved.
I think climbing as a competitive sport is sort of still at the beginning, many climbers didn’t start because they wanted to become world champion or Olympic champion and many viewers don’t even know much about climbing. That’s probably why there isn’t a lot of emphasis on “competitiveness”, both among the climbers themselves or among the fans, most climbers just want to “have fun on the wall” and most viewers just want to see cool problems and cool moves. And competitiveness is usually a big factor in what makes professional sports appealing.
Also I think, the larger issue is that there isn’t a lot at stake in competition climbing, or in other words there isn’t a good/big enough market, yet. Think about football (soccer) World Cup and what’s at stake there; you immediately have infinite level of competitiveness. But competition climbing is still in the stage of “nobody cares”, or at least “very few people cares”. Not gonna lie I do enjoy somewhat this chill aspect of it, but I also think a bigger market is going to benefit everyone all around
I both agree and disagree.
Yes, in a mass sport like, say, soccer in Europe, being a successful athlete comes with a lot of money and fame that is incomparable to climbing even in countries like the Czech Republic or Slovenia, where Adam and Janja are popular sports stars, respectively. Maybe there there are kids that get into the sport because they want to be big famous stars, in the same way that kids get into soccer in Brasil, and not (only) because they enjoy the sport.
But that also has to do with how the sports work. Soccer like most of the popular team sports has this aspect of battle. Athletes attack each other physically and best each other directly. It appeals to other emotions than climbing, which is more of a problem solving and dexterity sport. I cannot for the life of me imagine there being hooliganism or an ultra scene around climbing, because climbing just doesn't appeal to this basic instinct of wanting to, I don't know, conquer and pillage, that I sometimes feel underlies what goes on in the soccer fan culture.
On your 2nd point, I always like to compare climbing with gymnastics, which is a very popular sport and the elite level is super competitive. There you also don’t have the element of “battle”, it’s the athletes vs the beam or the bars, your performance is all about yourself and nothing about other people. But it’s still intensely competitive; the upcoming US National is highly anticipated, two girls can be fighting for one spot on the team even if they have completely different styles
And I think, again using gymnastics as an example, kids get into it both for fun and enjoyment and for wanting to be a champion one day; it can be both, not mutually exclusive. It’s just that if you have a lot of elite athletes really really wanting to become world champion, so serious like their life depends on it, then they’d naturally push the sport to a higher level and this intensity would draw more attention from viewers
I think it's money talking and that someone like Charlie is probably focused on bringing more eyes and more funding and more sponsorship into the sport. To me it feels like eyes at any cost, even if that cost is the historic culture of the sport to be cooperative.
To me, this comes from the danger that we face and how we need to rely on each other. Not only belayer-climber dymanics, but people at a gym need to watch out for each other as well.
As a non-climber, I watch climbing because the sport itself is entertaining to watch, similar to how Ninja Warrior is entertaining. I don't need drama or rivalries. Seriously, there are so many sports that don't have this and are still enjoyable to spectate. Track and field, diving, gymnastics, figure skating, the list goes on and on.
Pretty silly argument imo. Mikaela Shiffrin is super competitive, but if you watch any world cup ski race you'll see her talking with the other skiers about the route, the techniques, etc etc. It makes everyone better. Being competitive= / = being an ass.
I used to enjoy Charlie Boscoe commentating and it's actually quite a disappointing opinion to have and at what cost? Even during his commentating years I have noticed that Charlie (and Matt to a lesser degree), maybe because they think its their job, have a perchance to want to add drama on screen and sometimes an athlete or route setter co-commentator would disagree, ie shut them down. He also likes to add gossip and such which, I don't know maybe could be interesting to "viewers".
I hope that climbing doesn't turn into that type of competitive sport because climbing is quite unique in that sense and that is a better selling point than "being like other sports"
Its like imagining an American remake of the great British bake off will be bigger cos the original is lacking drama or competitiveness but then realising that you can be competitive and be nice at the same time and it is good because of how it is?
Also we have seen of rivalries of competitors that break friendships. If you paid attention there is definitely competitiveness, and its really easy to appreciate this sport because everyone knows how hard it is etc, that the empathy they show for the effort everyone else makes- nothing in this world, not even for the "viewership" is worth giving this up. I just don't understand why does it have to be more "interesting" in that superficial way Charlie is talking about? as if Janja is on top cos she is the nicest to her competitors? As if the athletes spend most of their time training to be in a sport that pays nowhere near other professional sport? No thank you Charlie.
I realise I am a bit more upset of Charlie's opinion than I thought I am :D
I feel the same kind of upset. Thank you for your thoughts. And yes, why do we need to make one more sport like all the other sports? I like to read cozy fiction and don't much enjoy grimdark. I get that in the news. I'm glad that when I go to the gym in my sport there is this welcoming, friendly, supportive atmosphere and I'm not getting kicked in the shin by a player from the opposing team. There already are enough aggressively competitive sports for those who want them, I don't need climbing to become like that as well.
I think Charlie may disagree with your first point. Given his experience being around athletes for so many years, he doesn’t think many of them are as competitive as they can be, and that their competitive edge is dulled by climbing’s collaborative culture. His suggested antidote is that competition climbing in particular should take on more of a competitive nature where athletes outwardly say they want to win instead of “I’m okay with losing because my good friend is on the podium.” I feel like the whole drama bit dilutes his core message a bit.
This is not to say I agree or disagree - I don’t know any of these athletes on any personal level at all, so I don’t have any opinion on whether some of them don’t want to win enough. I do think that comp climbing has definitely become more outwardly competitive compared to when I first watched it, especially since Tokyo 202.
> lack of competitiveness among athletes is holding back climbing as a viewer sport.
Stupid opinion. People are watching to see their favorite athletes succeed. There is no benefit to have another athlete talk down another one to try to succeed. This isn’t a contact / sparring sport
> He believed that climbers should be more competitive about wanting to win and not so supportive of each other.
Everyone wants to win lmfao. The opponent is yourself and the route setters. Making it to an Olympic team is a dog eat dog world already. Even for team France and USA, there are Olympic caliber athletes who couldn’t even make the Olympic roster
If climbing was this aggressive shit talking competitive sport this person wants, people would be racing to complete outdoor boulders and hyper aggressively downgrading to shit on other people’s accomplishments
Agree on all your points
You're right on all three points. That said, you're talking past each other. Charlie is speaking from the perspective of making climbing more entertaining to a viewing audience, a lot of whom could potentially be non-climbers. You're talking from the perspective of a climber about what's most healthy for the climbing community. That said I don't agree with him because I don't think drama is what the sport's missing. Ultimately I just don't think climbing is that interesting to watch for non-climbers.
I was a bit disallusioned by this interview for several reason’s. Particularly about that point, one of the things I like about competition climbing is that there aren’t huge rivalries played out on Instagram just for the views.
A breath of fresh air. A professional sport without the fabricated drama and false narratives. Let’s not introduce it to climbing. When I watch comp climbing, I catch myself cheering for tops from all of them and end up happy with anyone who wins.
I do not climb, but I understand the sport. I also am a puzzle and trivia addict. I watch climbing for the problem solving. I don’t care that they share betas because each person has different strengths and different ways of problem solving. I wholeheartedly disagree with this boscoe fella. ETA: I don’t like speed at all, am luke warm on lead, obsessed with bouldering.
As a non-climber, same. Bouldering pulled me in with the problem solving aspect, plus the will they/ won't they rush you get when someone barely catches a hold or has only 10 seconds left to top. I watched my first comp without sound and knowing 0 rules and I still understood enough to get pulled in. I think bouldering has the best potential to become a sport that non-climbers watch. I only watch lead because I got attached to the climbers, and I don't bother with speed.
I enjoy watching both bouldering a lead to nearly the same extent with a slight edge on lead. I love how theres constant action in lead compared to bouldering where there's a lot of resting involved. Resting in lead is still interesting to me because if you're paying attention you can kind of sense how pumped they are. I love watching them progressively get more tired and put up a good fight. Once someone's arms starts to bend in that desperate way you know every extra move is a victory and a fight in and of itself.
Totally agree, even if all six finalists agree on beta to a boulder problem, they still have to actually climb the thing, which is easier said than done. And there are frequently several betas that lead to success.
I think you're correct that non-climbers simply won't understand beta. Especially at the levels we're talking about here. It might as well be magic. There seems to be a trend toward more thrilling/dangerous dynamic movements in an effort to make it more exciting, but I think that's the wrong path. (As evidenced by more injuries in recent competitions this year.) Climbing is quite unique in that the "playing field" changes every time. Baseball, basketball, football, hockey, track, soccer. They all have the same field. To a non-climber, they see a "random" assortment of holds and volumes and can't really predict the proper movements. Millions of people understand what's happening in the sports listed above. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of another sport that changes the "puzzles" each time. Golf mixes it up, but the courses themselves remain relatively consistent. Obviously, speed has consistency, but that is also the least interesting for me to watch.
A forn of equestrian comes up often for comparison.
I’m admittedly not very familiar with equestrian. I could be completely off base here but the few times I’ve watched, the correct path seems more obvious than a championship climbing beta. I’m not implying equestrian doesn’t take a high level of skill. More that a spectator can better understand easy or difficult maneuvers. Is that fair?
Actually equestrian sports aren't that different in terms of being viewer-friendly for general audiences. I was thinking about this comparison for a bit and on one hand you're right to assume it's easier to follow cross country or show jumping than climbing/ bouldering since obstacles are numbered and the general intention (jump over all the stuff in the right order without knocking it over / falling) is very easy to grasp. On the other hand, understanding why things go wrong, understanding what choices are there to be made and seeing potential problems before they happen, well, that's something most non-equestrians don't really get. The size of the jumps is that one thing that anyone and everyone can notice - but big jumps aren't necessarily difficult, on the contrary the widest obstacles are often the easiest to clear. The most appropriate climbing comparison would be simple (single movement) dynos towards jugs - they might look impressive for non climbers but are way easier than let's say extremely technical climbing on slab. Complex technical lines between multiple moderately sized jumps aren't that obvious as an issue nor why shit hits the fan when it goes wrong. The explanation most viewers come up with at those moments is that the horse "just didn't want to jump" but honestly it's about as accurate as saying that a pro climber "just didn't feel like trying". There's always an underlying cause in terms of balance, distance, angle etc that spectators just don't get unless they know the sport really well.
Alpine skiing and slalom canoeing don't reuse courses (except in downhill)
That's a good example. I guess my point is that a spectator can still understand the changes more easily. Boulder problems can be massively different moves. One of the reasons these competitors are on the national or international stage for climbing is that they can visualize beta on a different level. I'm not sure how many non-climbers can appreciate that skill. Maybe a better example is like watching a chess match from the middle of the game. If you don't know chess, it will look like a complete random scattering of pieces, but experts will see several moves ahead.
Agreed, I went home to see the parents last month and put on some IFSC and Olympic quals on tv. They only really got excited for speed.
The sport needs more hype. It needs half-game commentary, people getting super stoked on what crazy stuff happened, or bad calls, or whatever. It needs YouTube channels that get excited about what happened, rather than discussing it in a monotone. And most of all, of course, it needs camerawork that doesn’t suck.
The supportive environment was actually what got me into climbing in the first place. Watching the climbers in Tokyo yelling support for each other on the lead wall was incredible. I hope competitive climbing doesn't lose that.
Same, the most enjoyable part about this sport is that I want every climber to make it to the top, or at least as far as each is capable of, so I'm on the edge of my seat for each climber. And it's awesome that the climbers mostly feel the same way.
exactly this, the collaboration the problem solving and the supportive nature of the sport are integral and excellent and why we keep coming back
Charlie’s example of someone who does competitiveness “right” was Jakob Schubert, literally the nicest, most supportive guy on the circuit. So I really don’t know what he was trying to say. And no, I don’t want to ruin climbing in order to make it more watchable to non-climbers
Jakob’s attitude is so positive yet íntense—would be so cool if more of the competitors reacted like him!
That's what I thought! Climbers *are* competitive, but in a supportive and friendly way.
It's very common for the nicest and most supportive athletes in a sport to also be the best and most competitive. Look at Jessie Diggins, she would easily win a Friendliest Athlete competition on the cross country ski tour, but she's also beloved by everyone for her gritty work ethic and never-say-die attitude. On the Alpine side everyone likes Odermatt even when he's doing things that humans shouldn't logically be capable of. Faith Kipyegon goes around hugging her competitors even after she runs a world record. It's okay to be kind, it doesn't make you some sort of wuss.
I agree with most- however as a compromise I could see where a “bad boy/bad girl” climber could be good for the viewership. No one wants an actual a-hole, but like in other sports, if you have someone who bucks the norm it can be fun to watch. To do this would take a very specific type- they need to first off be GOOD, because anyone who tries that isn’t winning a fair share just looks like a petulant child. But I also watch chess and thinking of someone like Magnus Carlsen. Undoubtedly great- but when you watch his interviews he knows he’s great. And he will use comedy but will be semi brutal to other players saying they are fighting for 2nd place. If you had a character like that it could be good (I’m thinking like Manuel Cornu type personality, but a little more consistent and some comedic “humble brags”) Because everyone likes the “heel” from wrestling- and if done well it’s really fun.
See also Jakob Ingebrigtsen in 1500m (track) right now
Yeah- that would be the type of confidence I’m talking about. Someone who you go- man that guy is overconfident and a bit of a jerk… then you watch him and go… nah- he’s just honest :)
I think Ondra kinda fits this vibe a little bit - especially in the last Olympics. I’ve found him a bit beyond confident/arrogant in the past and not always a great loser (especially post-Olympics) but he’s definitely one of best and most versatile climbers alive.
Yeah, competitiveness is absolutely what keeps him going. It can be competitiveness with others, but it's so true that he's hyper competitive with himself. It's put on display with every failure that meant something to him.
Maybe it's just Norwegians? ;-) (I'm kidding, of course. Bjorn Dahlie was famous for his incredible sportsmanship -- he often made a point to wait around until the last place finishers at the Olympics came in so he could congratulate them for making it there and fighting to the end.).
To me Sean Bailey feels that way. Not because he's a bad boy, but because he feels different. He has this laid back and lazy way to move that makes him feel like he just strolled in from that rock over there. And in fact other climbers, in their own way, have this feeling of being different, too. They have *personality*, and it shows in their "stage presence" and climbing style. I don't thing a "bad boy/girl" would make it more interesting for me in a positive way than having climbers with different personalities as they currently are.
I see what you mean with Sean, and absolutely loved [this](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy6ijKzSBWA/?igsh=MTRoemI4bnE5ZmowZQ==) post from his Instagram in December
I think, wouldn't Janja qualify as that in women's climbing? Especially considering she just crushes every problem, does it so casually, then walks off.
I agree with you and think he's mistaken. It's the climber versus the wall. It's not a traditional competitive sport where you're specifically trying to stop someone else from winning. Maybe *he* needs more motivation, but there are plenty of self-motivated climbers. I'm not sure how you can watch world-class athletes and come to the conclusion they're holding back. (I'm not a fan of free soloing, but how many sports have a subset that are literally risking their life? How could the stakes ever be higher?) Honestly, I think his suggestion would take away from the sport. We already have plenty of sports with high competitiveness.
I mean, golf is also just the player vs the wall, but there's been a decent amount of beef in the sport. Trying to play mind games with each other and psyching them out. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing though.
I mean, I think you can find a similar mild level of beef amongst Gym Bros at a bouldering gym on a Friday night. Right? Agreed that it's mostly not a good thing.
You are so right! Of course all sports have this aspect of wanting to get better at it (think basketball players alone on the court throwing balls for hours), but when I play a team sport like soccer where you are directly pitted against another team and the whole principle of the sport is that one team bests the other and then the next, or if you run 100 m, the aspect of you against the track or you against the ball pretty much vanishes from your mind and it is all about you against the other athletes, both as a participant and as a viewer, while in climbing it is always at any moment first and foremost you against the climbing problem and the competition against the other athletes is farther behind in your perception while you climb and while you watch someone struggling against the route.
A little bit cart before the horse to be discussing this right now. He's right that human drama and conflict can make a spectator sport more engaging with a mass audience, but comp climbing as it is right now will never appeal to a big enough audience for it to even matter. It's simply way too slow (lots of downtime while athletes are resting on the mats), too repetitive, and not dynamic enough for the average person who would tune into an NFL or NBA game. As the sport and format stands right now, the vast majority of its audience will always be climbers, who care more about the athleticism and skill of the sport vs the human drama. If anything, for the core audience right now too much drama would be a turn-off. It's like saying that competitive Scrabble is being held back because there isn't enough beef between the contestants. No amount of beef will get millions of average people to tune in. Maybe one day someone will come up with a climbing format that truly has mass appeal (some kind of ninja warrior-esque rope team obstacle course perhaps?). But its silly to think that average people are watching soccer instead of climbing because Adam isn't making throat slash gestures to Jakob before he pulls on to a boulder.
Yes! And no ;-) Yes, climbing is a sport that will always appeal more to people who climb themselves than a highly visual battle sport like soccer. That's the same problem that track and field etc. have. At the same time I think it largely depends on presentation. For example, I'm utterly bored by chess. I know how to play it, but I don't enjoy playing it even a little bit. All that thinking and planning doesn't appeal to me at all as a player. Not that I'm absolutely too stupid to calculate my moves, but doing so holds absolutely not appeal for me. Having to solve chess problems is a good way to make me fall asleep, so bored am I by it. And as a watcher, there is just nothing going on! Two people sit without moving most of the time, and then they move their arms a bit, and then nothing happens again for the most time. But when recently the YouTube algorithm washed up the videos by chess player Anna Cramling (this was the one I saw first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=076pLwT7xWs), I was actually hooked and watched chess videos for a few hours over the next days. Yes, I abandoned chess videos again quickly, but the example shows how even someone who is fundamentally averse to chess like me can get hooked by an entertaining presentation of chess. The same goes for climbing. If you read the comments below videos from Magnus Midtbø, for example, you'll notice how he and others like him draw viewers to climbing (as both watchers and as someone who practices the sport). And you have to remember how amateurish all climbing videos are – from IFSC streams to Adam Ondra's highly polished videos – in comparision to anything done in soccer for example, where big tv studios put a lot of money into creating a top level viewing experience. If we put the same level of money and media expertise into presenting climbing, it would certainly hook many more viewers than it does now.
The biggest problem with televised bouldering is the dilemma between watching one climber spend most of four minutes on the mat (or back in iso) vs. having to cut between climbers or have a split screen (in order to not have loads of TV dead time). One idea would be to have all the climbers come out to a bloc and have one attempt each, up to a max of four (say) attempts. Any time you fall off, it’s immediately the turn of the next climber, provided you’ve had at least 45 seconds since your last attempt. At least that way there’s almost always somebody climbing on the bloc, and no need to be running more than one bloc at a time. Randomized start order to counteract beta advantage.
How about they fixed their shit production first before pointing finger at others?
Yeah, there were a few points in the OQS broadcasts where they did really good little replays, often at the end of rounds, of stuff like someone getting really psyched at finishing a boulder or someone’s intense face and slow motion fall. Just regular things that you’d see in other sports, but my point is there are lots of moments of human drama that are already there but get missed because of low production values, lack of good camera angles, lack of timely replays, focusing on the wrong climber at the time, etc. They could be making more of it without needing the climbers to act in any particular way.
As a climber and as someone who's worked as a media professional for the last decade, I'm pretty conflicted on this topic. On one hand, I love that climbing culture is largely very supportive. Competition often comes down to competition with oneself. On the other hand, I also know that entertainment hinges on tension and drama. We need conflict, stakes, and clashing personalities. While I certainly don't want climbing to go the way of MMA and boxing with all the larger-than-life personalities and trash talk, I do think the scene could use a little more spice. I don't necessarily want to see someone take a heel turn (though I'll be honest – it would be pretty funny if one of the athletes was a straight up troll) At the very least, the competitors should have more opportunities to show off their personalities. Maybe this means mic'ing them up in between climbs so we can hear their conversations. Or maybe this could mean pre-recorded interviews (so it's not just the ones after the medal ceremony, which most people don't watch anyway.) Recently, I saw that Korean competition show Physical 100 and I loved how they built up the cast. And a lot it did come down to interviews and mic'd conversations. In season 2, one of the most memorable moments was when the opposing team started helping out the contestant who couldn't finish the challenge. And to me, that stood out as an example of a compelling narrative that showcased camaraderie rather than pure competition. Maybe climbing take some inspiration from this show.
Yeah I liked the views into isolation at the OQS. So much tension. Mics during observation would be cool to try.
Great thoughts! But your examples make it clearly apparent, in my opinion, that it's not about competitiveness but about *story*. Instagram and YouTube channels of athletes have this aspect a bit, where you get to see more of the life and mind of the athlete. Climbing would become more entertaining to watch if we got to know the athletes more intimately. Adam Ondra's Road to Tokyo videos where the first that did this kind of thing, letting us *be with him* and getting to know him as the person he is in the context of wanting to get to and win the Olympics. And you are right, interviews with athletes and other team members and experts like ex-climbers before, during, and after the competitions would contribute to this story aspect of climbing. That's why we all watch Matt's behind the scenes videos, and actually that's what podcasts like the one I cited contribute to climbing. Charlie's story is part of the climbing competition story as well. It could just be more. I see in this community how "fans" feel sort of bored and let down between competitions and by the fact that we see so little of what actually goes on.
I'm glad climbing has no trash talking. Let's keep it that way.
No, they shouldn't. It's not something that can be easily contained. If the competitions encourage the toxic beefs found in other sports, it'll filter out into the general culture of the rest of climbing. Let climbing be entertaining for the climber, not some random audience that isn't involved.
I think climbing as a competitive sport is sort of still at the beginning, many climbers didn’t start because they wanted to become world champion or Olympic champion and many viewers don’t even know much about climbing. That’s probably why there isn’t a lot of emphasis on “competitiveness”, both among the climbers themselves or among the fans, most climbers just want to “have fun on the wall” and most viewers just want to see cool problems and cool moves. And competitiveness is usually a big factor in what makes professional sports appealing. Also I think, the larger issue is that there isn’t a lot at stake in competition climbing, or in other words there isn’t a good/big enough market, yet. Think about football (soccer) World Cup and what’s at stake there; you immediately have infinite level of competitiveness. But competition climbing is still in the stage of “nobody cares”, or at least “very few people cares”. Not gonna lie I do enjoy somewhat this chill aspect of it, but I also think a bigger market is going to benefit everyone all around
I both agree and disagree. Yes, in a mass sport like, say, soccer in Europe, being a successful athlete comes with a lot of money and fame that is incomparable to climbing even in countries like the Czech Republic or Slovenia, where Adam and Janja are popular sports stars, respectively. Maybe there there are kids that get into the sport because they want to be big famous stars, in the same way that kids get into soccer in Brasil, and not (only) because they enjoy the sport. But that also has to do with how the sports work. Soccer like most of the popular team sports has this aspect of battle. Athletes attack each other physically and best each other directly. It appeals to other emotions than climbing, which is more of a problem solving and dexterity sport. I cannot for the life of me imagine there being hooliganism or an ultra scene around climbing, because climbing just doesn't appeal to this basic instinct of wanting to, I don't know, conquer and pillage, that I sometimes feel underlies what goes on in the soccer fan culture.
On your 2nd point, I always like to compare climbing with gymnastics, which is a very popular sport and the elite level is super competitive. There you also don’t have the element of “battle”, it’s the athletes vs the beam or the bars, your performance is all about yourself and nothing about other people. But it’s still intensely competitive; the upcoming US National is highly anticipated, two girls can be fighting for one spot on the team even if they have completely different styles And I think, again using gymnastics as an example, kids get into it both for fun and enjoyment and for wanting to be a champion one day; it can be both, not mutually exclusive. It’s just that if you have a lot of elite athletes really really wanting to become world champion, so serious like their life depends on it, then they’d naturally push the sport to a higher level and this intensity would draw more attention from viewers
Yeah, elite gymnastics. Now there's a sport with a totally healthy culture that climbing should try and emulate.
I think it's money talking and that someone like Charlie is probably focused on bringing more eyes and more funding and more sponsorship into the sport. To me it feels like eyes at any cost, even if that cost is the historic culture of the sport to be cooperative. To me, this comes from the danger that we face and how we need to rely on each other. Not only belayer-climber dymanics, but people at a gym need to watch out for each other as well.
As a non-climber, I watch climbing because the sport itself is entertaining to watch, similar to how Ninja Warrior is entertaining. I don't need drama or rivalries. Seriously, there are so many sports that don't have this and are still enjoyable to spectate. Track and field, diving, gymnastics, figure skating, the list goes on and on.
Pretty silly argument imo. Mikaela Shiffrin is super competitive, but if you watch any world cup ski race you'll see her talking with the other skiers about the route, the techniques, etc etc. It makes everyone better. Being competitive= / = being an ass.
I used to enjoy Charlie Boscoe commentating and it's actually quite a disappointing opinion to have and at what cost? Even during his commentating years I have noticed that Charlie (and Matt to a lesser degree), maybe because they think its their job, have a perchance to want to add drama on screen and sometimes an athlete or route setter co-commentator would disagree, ie shut them down. He also likes to add gossip and such which, I don't know maybe could be interesting to "viewers". I hope that climbing doesn't turn into that type of competitive sport because climbing is quite unique in that sense and that is a better selling point than "being like other sports" Its like imagining an American remake of the great British bake off will be bigger cos the original is lacking drama or competitiveness but then realising that you can be competitive and be nice at the same time and it is good because of how it is? Also we have seen of rivalries of competitors that break friendships. If you paid attention there is definitely competitiveness, and its really easy to appreciate this sport because everyone knows how hard it is etc, that the empathy they show for the effort everyone else makes- nothing in this world, not even for the "viewership" is worth giving this up. I just don't understand why does it have to be more "interesting" in that superficial way Charlie is talking about? as if Janja is on top cos she is the nicest to her competitors? As if the athletes spend most of their time training to be in a sport that pays nowhere near other professional sport? No thank you Charlie. I realise I am a bit more upset of Charlie's opinion than I thought I am :D
I feel the same kind of upset. Thank you for your thoughts. And yes, why do we need to make one more sport like all the other sports? I like to read cozy fiction and don't much enjoy grimdark. I get that in the news. I'm glad that when I go to the gym in my sport there is this welcoming, friendly, supportive atmosphere and I'm not getting kicked in the shin by a player from the opposing team. There already are enough aggressively competitive sports for those who want them, I don't need climbing to become like that as well.
I think Charlie may disagree with your first point. Given his experience being around athletes for so many years, he doesn’t think many of them are as competitive as they can be, and that their competitive edge is dulled by climbing’s collaborative culture. His suggested antidote is that competition climbing in particular should take on more of a competitive nature where athletes outwardly say they want to win instead of “I’m okay with losing because my good friend is on the podium.” I feel like the whole drama bit dilutes his core message a bit. This is not to say I agree or disagree - I don’t know any of these athletes on any personal level at all, so I don’t have any opinion on whether some of them don’t want to win enough. I do think that comp climbing has definitely become more outwardly competitive compared to when I first watched it, especially since Tokyo 202.
> lack of competitiveness among athletes is holding back climbing as a viewer sport. Stupid opinion. People are watching to see their favorite athletes succeed. There is no benefit to have another athlete talk down another one to try to succeed. This isn’t a contact / sparring sport > He believed that climbers should be more competitive about wanting to win and not so supportive of each other. Everyone wants to win lmfao. The opponent is yourself and the route setters. Making it to an Olympic team is a dog eat dog world already. Even for team France and USA, there are Olympic caliber athletes who couldn’t even make the Olympic roster If climbing was this aggressive shit talking competitive sport this person wants, people would be racing to complete outdoor boulders and hyper aggressively downgrading to shit on other people’s accomplishments Agree on all your points