Really interesting insights on this one! Eddie has always been someone who's been readily available to share suggestions and opinions when prompted, he's personally contributed a LOT to my own progression as a competition photographer. Glad you got him on this long-format video, unfiltered and raw with his opinions as he is!
Amazing podcast with so much insights! Definitely my favourite so far. As at a time I was wondering "why do gyms and climbing holds companies don't sponsor athletes" I think the problem is still in demand and supply when it comes to climbing. Probably in most of the countries there are still more climbers than gyms they can fit into. Because there are more and more gyms appearing prices (and by prices I mean margins) of climbing holds or new climbing walls are very high. So neither gyms nor climbing holds companies would get anything "extra" from good PR that comes with the sponsorships (as they're already full or have more orders that they can manage). Also in case of gyms there is no need for global reach. Of course it would be nice if any of those would sponsor athletes just to sponsor athletes, but the world is what it is :) So I think it'll become a more popular practice but not yet.
Eddie's insights on the financial side of climbing/IFSC are really interesting. It does always seem bizarre that there is so little money in climbing. I also watch things like Skateboarding and BMX, and there is SO much more prize money in them. In my mind, this all comes down to the point that Charlie made which is that (indoor) climbing is massive from a participation point of view but still very low from a spectator point of view. This means it doesn't attract nearly the same level of sponsor income that some other sports of a similar size might. So it feels like the main effort needs to be in getting more people to watch it, which the Olympics certainly helps with. The IFSC might want to consider "selling out" a bit more though. You could totally imagine things like other sports where you might have headline sponsors like the "Red Bull World Cup Circuit", sponsors for individual boulders, sponsor logos on the wall etc. That being said, there are also other massive sports such as athletics where only the very very top people manage to make a living (unless they happen to be of a nationality that puts a lot of money into their sport).
Would love to see the 4+ minutes come back!! The 4 minutes is just not as fun. We could limit to 5 min to make sure the schedule can be reasonably followed...
@@ThatsNotRealClimbingPodcast I think he meant limiting the plus-time to one minute - so you can still pull on at 3:59, but then you have only one more minute to finish the boulder and can't rest for 2 or 3 minutes even if there's a suitable position to do so. Completely off topic here, but I've wondered about this for a while: You've talked to both route-setters and athletes about the possibility of setters setting for certain climbers/teams. I've always wondered about a much more straightforward way of cheating - what about setters just sharing the beta of the problems with a climber? I can't really see anything preventing a setter from doing that, especially in the future when there is more money in the sport and climbers/trainers/federations could just try to bribe a setter. Maybe you could keep it in mind as a question for one of the next interviews (if you have someone on that might be able to comment on this)? Also off-topic, but thanks for doing the podcast - I find the interviews and insights into comp-climbing very interesting.
Listening to Eddie Fowke's stories is always interesting. I can't say that I agree about the old 4 plus rule. Watching Margo Hayes recover for four or five minutes never struck me as exciting theater.
Really interesting insights on this one! Eddie has always been someone who's been readily available to share suggestions and opinions when prompted, he's personally contributed a LOT to my own progression as a competition photographer. Glad you got him on this long-format video, unfiltered and raw with his opinions as he is!
Great interview! Interesting perspective, felt very personal, which was nice.
Amazing podcast with so much insights! Definitely my favourite so far.
As at a time I was wondering "why do gyms and climbing holds companies don't sponsor athletes" I think the problem is still in demand and supply when it comes to climbing. Probably in most of the countries there are still more climbers than gyms they can fit into. Because there are more and more gyms appearing prices (and by prices I mean margins) of climbing holds or new climbing walls are very high. So neither gyms nor climbing holds companies would get anything "extra" from good PR that comes with the sponsorships (as they're already full or have more orders that they can manage). Also in case of gyms there is no need for global reach.
Of course it would be nice if any of those would sponsor athletes just to sponsor athletes, but the world is what it is :) So I think it'll become a more popular practice but not yet.
Awesome interview. Really great stuff here.
Eddie's insights on the financial side of climbing/IFSC are really interesting. It does always seem bizarre that there is so little money in climbing. I also watch things like Skateboarding and BMX, and there is SO much more prize money in them.
In my mind, this all comes down to the point that Charlie made which is that (indoor) climbing is massive from a participation point of view but still very low from a spectator point of view. This means it doesn't attract nearly the same level of sponsor income that some other sports of a similar size might. So it feels like the main effort needs to be in getting more people to watch it, which the Olympics certainly helps with.
The IFSC might want to consider "selling out" a bit more though. You could totally imagine things like other sports where you might have headline sponsors like the "Red Bull World Cup Circuit", sponsors for individual boulders, sponsor logos on the wall etc.
That being said, there are also other massive sports such as athletics where only the very very top people manage to make a living (unless they happen to be of a nationality that puts a lot of money into their sport).
Amazing insights! I really love this interview, spot on that there should be more prize money for the athletes!
Would love to see the 4+ minutes come back!! The 4 minutes is just not as fun. We could limit to 5 min to make sure the schedule can be reasonably followed...
I think the intrigue is in the + rather than just how much time they get, but I see the pros of both!
@@ThatsNotRealClimbingPodcast I think he meant limiting the plus-time to one minute - so you can still pull on at 3:59, but then you have only one more minute to finish the boulder and can't rest for 2 or 3 minutes even if there's a suitable position to do so.
Completely off topic here, but I've wondered about this for a while: You've talked to both route-setters and athletes about the possibility of setters setting for certain climbers/teams. I've always wondered about a much more straightforward way of cheating - what about setters just sharing the beta of the problems with a climber? I can't really see anything preventing a setter from doing that, especially in the future when there is more money in the sport and climbers/trainers/federations could just try to bribe a setter. Maybe you could keep it in mind as a question for one of the next interviews (if you have someone on that might be able to comment on this)?
Also off-topic, but thanks for doing the podcast - I find the interviews and insights into comp-climbing very interesting.
Listening to Eddie Fowke's stories is always interesting. I can't say that I agree about the old 4 plus rule. Watching Margo Hayes recover for four or five minutes never struck me as exciting theater.
I can see how it amps up the anticipation...but yeah 4 min of anticipation? maybe not haha