Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Psicobloc the Future? Why I am not Drinking the Chlorine (yet)

Being off in the hinterlands of coastal Maine last week and without access to the Internet, I missed the big event in Park City that was hyped up across the Internet as the future of comp climbing. This was the Psicobloc comp, where organizers had set up a 50 foot wall over a pool normally used for freestyle skiing training, arranged so that competitors could climb side by side on identical routes. Scheduled to coincide with the OR tradeshow, the event was regarded by many as a great success and many commented that it could point to a future for climbing comps as mainstream entertainment, taking the sport to the "next level". I think this feeling was particularly strong given the disappointment of not being selected for Olympic inclusion in 2020.

Now anyone reading this blog knows that I have a contrarian disposition about a lot of things and those of you who need more "awesome" should know better than to read my posts anyway. And there's no doubt that within its own context and setting, the comp was a success. Chris Sharma put the weight of his reputation behind the event and a really good roster of talent showed up. But here's my take on the future of this format: it is probably not going to work as "the future of competition climbing"

Anyone still left reading? OK, then. I have no animus or axes to grind here, only a few basic points for athletes, organizers and spectators to consider. Some of them are the same problems with comp climbing in general, some are specific to DWS events.

1. Climbing is boring to watch. It turns out it is basically just as boring to watch it over a pool of water. In the highlight reel I saw, there was virtually no attention paid to the routes themselves and no wonder. Despite the world-class setter Dani Andrada and the A-list athletes, the fact remained that they were slowly climbing plastic blobs over a pool. Apparently the routes were fairly hard but the average spectator would not have a clue. From a TV standpoint this is a major hurdle to overcome.

2. Climbers falling into water is boring to watch. After the first few plunges, it seemed to me no more or less interesting than watching boulderers hit the mat or fall on a rope. There was no seriously engaging aspect of the falls that I could see anyone outside the sport taking a meaningful interest in. As opposed to competitive diving or cliff diving, DWS falls are extrinsic to the event, being random and uncontrolled by the athlete.

3. Format. The competition format made no sense since there was no real rationale for pairing off particular climbers against one another. The visuals were slightly more interesting but in terms of the actual competition, it really didn't matter. Apparently time was a tiebreaker in case both climbers topped out, which made no sense to me. Furthermore there was at least one close call involving a climber almost landing on top of another. Obviously this doesn't have to stay in place for the future but it is a problem regardless. How do we know who is winning?

4. Venue. How many locales are going to be able to handle a big wall over a sufficiently deep pool? There were questions as to whether the pool was actually deep enough and I heard that at least one climber hit the bottom. Regardless of safety concerns, psicobloc raises the bar on venue options, limiting the possible places for comps and increasing the expense overall since they will require installation of temporary walls.

5. Competitor safety. This was completely passed over in the lead up to the event but if we're talking "the future" then it needs to be discussed. Falling into water at 40 feet in a haphazard unplanned way is a potentially very dangerous activity with injuries like spinal compaction, concussion, etc a real possibility. The past practice in climbing competitions has been to minimize danger to the participants. DWS events cannot eliminate the possibility of life-threatening/altering injuries occurring to participants to the degree that traditional events can. Going forward, I can see climbers giving the event a pass for precisely this reason, setting aside the fact that for many the sensation of hitting the water hard from 40 feet up is simply not fun. Falling into water is part of deep-water soloing but not essential to the sport of climbing.

I appreciate that everyone got excited about the possibilities of this kind of event but from a mainstream sports standpoint, I don't see it going much farther. Maybe time will prove me wrong but I think the points raised above deserve serious consideration. Justin Roth in his thoughtful analysis of the comp, raised the specter of Snowbird, a marquee event that in 1988 represented for many the promise of a new era. Sadly the Snowbird competitions ultimately proved a financial disaster for their organizer Jeff Lowe and the story has remained much the same afterwards, at least for adult events.

I cannot predict the future of climbing competitions with any certainty but I do feel that until leaders in the sport come up with a coherent consistent vision of what achievement in the sport is and how to present it, we will be in a perpetual experimental mode, throwing stuff up on the wall to see what sticks, to coin a phrase. Part of that process has got to include media that is serious about reporting and analyzing all these developments, the way that mainstream sports reporting (at its best) does all the time. I wonder if climbing will become a mainstream sport only when its events and personalities get mainstream treatment. But that's a post for another day...

19 comments:

Narc said...

The safety issues are a serious concern to be sure, but many of the other issues could have been alleviated with a more coherent broadcast. Very little effort was made on the part of the announcers to provide any context as to what was happening, why it was happening, who it was happening to and what was going to happen next. It was basically almost 4 hours (about 2x too long) of what would appear to non insiders as random people crawling out onto the wall and climbing as high as they could.

Peter Beal said...

Yeah, the comments on your site were incredibly scathing regarding the commentary. Leaving names out of it, it seems like a wise investment would be grooming a few announcers to properly get the job done.

That said, I wasn't overwhelmed by the visuals and climbers bombing into the water lost its appeal/ pretty quickly.

Justin said...

Very good insights, Peter.

Personally, I think the safety and the format can and should be refined over time to make the event more interesting to watch and more fun to compete in. The requirement of a deep pool/body of water will definitely limit venues, but this too can be sorted out, given someone willing to fight hard enough and believe in the vision.

Seth Godin's latest blog comes to mind. "Just about all the big decisions, innovations and perfect solutions around you didn't start that way," Godin writes. "No, they were the result of one person, a person in a jam or a hurry or somewhat inspired. One person flipping a coin or tweaking a little bit more or saying, "this might not work" and then taking a leap."

I like to think this series will stick around, grow and prosper. As David Hasselhoff once said: "All things are possible; nothing is unpossible."

Peter Beal said...

Thanks Justin and especially thanks for getting the discussion started beyond the hype. As we have both said, time will tell as to the long-term appeal of this event.

Dougald said...

Regarding the commentary: I think the problem/solution is that there are really two separate jobs that must be done in terms of commentary: One is the live emcee at the venue, whose primary job is to keep the crowd psyched. Mission accomplished at Park City. The second job is analysis, color commentary, and giving the spectators a clue as to what's going on. This is the job that can and must be done on the "TV" cast. The problem is that these are two separate and even conflicting missions, and so they must be performed by separate people with different skills. Relying on the live emcee for the live stream online is folly. The World Cups have done a better job of this recently. Their live stream announcer is not even a climber: He's a TV professional, and it shows.

kalen said...

I think it is important to remember what this, and all pro competitions are really about, earning a living.

Climbers are, as a whole, some of the least paid professional athletes, yet they are some of the most athletic individuals in all of sports.

I think it's great that climbers are getting more creative to promote themselves and the sport that supports them. Sure, it was a little clunky and little boring, but it is a step in the right direction.

Peter Beal said...

Dougald,
I can't comment on the announcing/commentary since I didn't experience it and wasn't there. But yes absolutely, getting professional commentating is a crucial step regardless of format or event. I completely agree about the WC events.

Anonymous said...

ProBlog42

Peter Beal said...

Kalen, agreed on the making a living part. The question is whether pro/comp climbing is going to be a offbeat/sideshow event or the genuine article? I don't know that DWS events will be the catalyst for mainstream acceptance but my hunch is that they will not.

Anonymous said...

The format issue depends on if you are appealing to a main stream audience or traditional climbers? The climbing was too slow, basically a difficulty route, so speed was never a factor. If it is for main stream, make the routes easier, so more people make it to the top, let speed be a factor. Difficulty climbing is a dead format for spectators.

Falling in water from 30 plus feet is fun to watch but dangerous. I am surprised more athletes were not hurt. The venue needs to be at a 15 foot deep pool with aeration to break surface tension. I am not sure where you would find that, but it would be much safer.

At the event, as well as on the internet, they need to have a short video telling the story about each competitor. After all, fans want to follow and associate with athletes. This is never done, or never done well in climbing and I am not sure why. The association with athletes would greatly help visability.

I can see this as a one off event because of limited venues, and many might pass because of the risks, so you might not get the most talented competing. This was essentially a rope competition and there are very few competitive rope climbers in the USA.

Peter Beal said...

Anon,
I watched a bit of the women's semifinal round and was surprised there were multiple laps on the route along with shakeout points so yes things went slow, esp. if a competitor was not psyched about the drop, which was, as you point out not very safe. The pool arrangement you describe would be a good idea plus warming the water and providing a heated seating area.

Your last point is correct and has been a problem in this country for over a decade.

Justin said...

"At the event, as well as on the internet, they need to have a short video telling the story about each competitor. After all, fans want to follow and associate with athletes. This is never done, or never done well in climbing and I am not sure why."

When editing Urban Climber, I proposed a full athlete profile for each top competitor for the ABS supplement publication we put together for them. Never got the OK, and no one seemed to think it was important, but without a personal story to connect to, it's just a bunch of skinny kids falling off a wall, as far as the layperson is concerned...

Peter Beal said...

Justin,
That's the kind of package essential to prime-time style packaging of the event. Also some eye candy graphics for branding and event identity is needed IMO

Anonymous said...

Regarding the pool, wouldn't any pool that could host a sanctioned platform diving event work?

You might run into trouble with not having enough room to put up the wall's support structure. It probably sounds a lot easier than it is...

Peter Beal said...

I think finding a pool with 5 meters depth and 50 feet of clearance plus room for lots of spectators could be hard but I wonder if another issue would be insurance plus going forward IFSC certification for these kinds of events

Jay Perry said...

I think the biggest issue (and one I'm not sure how to resolve) is the #1 issue you point out. Climbing is wonderful to do but dreadfully boring to watch, even for climbers. This seems endemic and I think that no amount of packaging can make it palatable as a spectator event.

Luke Mehall said...

very contrarian indeed. what you're missing is that it was really fun to be there and watch! that's why there's hype. plus if these walls remain open for everyday climbers to use afterwards it will grow the popularity. again, FUN! climbing above a pressurized pool (which lessens the impact by the way) is fun, and that's what climbing is/should be FUN.

word.
Luke

Peter Beal said...

Thanks Luke,
The "you had to be there" popped up quite a lot as a defense of the event and unfortunately those of us outside the "industry" were probably not there. That said, for a sport to go mainstream, it has to be compelling for viewers on TV, internet video, whatever. I find it unlikely that DWS pools will become a mainstream feature for climbing owing to insurance, maintenance and supervision issues. But, as I said in the post, I could be wrong.

Speaking of being there, I was pretty impressed by the Horse Ballet event at the Boulder County Fair, especially the medieval jousting segment!

Mark Reeves said...

Have to agree that climbing comps are fundamentally boring to watch. Maybe they should look at Ninja Warrior!

As for the hazards the list is pretty big. I have seen someone give themselves and enema from a big fall, another broke their back at a DWS festival. I have tinitus which may well be from too many loud music dance nights, but my doctor thought that the impact my eardrums had from DWS impacts from 50ft were as likely to be the cause.

As harmless as a ringing in your ears sounds, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Don't get me wrong DWS is great, and something I still enjoy from time to time, but to competitionize it seems a shame.

The UK had or is trying to have a DWS comp, unlike the USA where SLC is warm and the thought of falling off probably quite appealing. In the UK they are putting a climbing wall over a harbour and waiting for high tide!