Letter to Climbing Magazine

No way! Climbing magazine corrupting facts and spreading disinformation, all in the name of better profits? NO WAY!

They are by far the worst about this kind of thing among all climbing media outlets IMO, and the main reason I will NEVER buy their publication again. Climbing's reputation is crap for good reason and has been for a long time, and will continue to be, especially if they keep publishing stuff like this. Good thing there are lots of much better media outlets available.

I'm also curious how they responded, if at all. They tend to act less than adult when called on their B.S.

Justin Edl wrote:No way! Climbing magazine corrupting facts and spreading disinformation, all in the name of better profits? NO WAY! They are by far the worst about this kind of thing among all climbing media outlets IMO, and the main reason I will NEVER buy their publication again. Climbing's reputation is crap for good reason and has been for a long time, and will continue to be, especially if they keep publishing stuff like this. Good thing there are lots of much better media outlets available. I'm also curious how they responded, if at all. They tend to act less than adult when called on their B.S.

Ok, I cant sit next to fire and not chime in on this one.

I work with Climbing Magazine on a freelance level and they are THE most accurate publication I have ever worked with. Even to the point of on the LAST night of production for an issue, at 9:30PM they contacted a contributer to get correct photo caption information. I don't know how someone can be more accurate then that.

So let's not just spew rhetoric here and provide facts. Mistakes are one thing, but skewing facts for profit? That is B.S.

At least they're better then that California Climber rag. Man those guys are rough.

Alton, I think this post provides a pretty clear and factual account of the kind of thing I am talking about, and I am sure you could find more examples in any issue, some more than others. Glad to hear at least someone there apparently does some fact checking now and then. If they did more of that I would have nothing to say. Neat how that works.

All media sources pick and choose news, and how they present it, with one or another criteria. It just seems Climbing's criteria far too often centers purely around profits, which leads to a slanting of reality like mentioned in this post. Would the extra paragraphs to explain that the climbers involved contacted the locals to have better hardware replace the junk they put in somehow have detracted from the experience of the article or something (considering this was done?)? Or did Climbing seek the employment of people who were ignorant of proper and safe development practices to go develop climbs and write about the experience, both of which were intended for mass consumption? I just find that kind of decision making unacceptable, and as a result choose to inform myself through other outlets.

Also, exactly which publication are you attempting to spread rhetoric about at the end of your post. I'm sure California has lots of media outlets...

Alton R. wrote: Ok, I cant sit next to fire and not chime in on this one. I work with Climbing Magazine on a freelance level and they are THE most accurate publication I have ever worked with. Even to the point of on the LAST night of production for an issue, at 9:30PM they contacted a contributer to get correct photo caption information. I don't know how someone can be more accurate then that. So let's not just spew rhetoric here and provide facts. Mistakes are one thing, but skewing facts for profit? That is B.S. At least they're better then that California Climber rag. Man those guys are rough.

It is good to hear another perspective. Could you elaborate on what other publications you have worked with?

Alton R. wrote: I work with Climbing Magazine on a freelance level and they are THE most accurate publication I have ever worked with.

Meh, many climbing mags have lost their academic and formal value (if they even had any in the first place). Climbing mag is better than some, like DPM, but pretty much all of the top mags out there seem to have ventured the way of SiurusXM pop-celebrity news, but for the climbing world. I cant remember the last time DMP's front cover reported on something other than some kid sending 5.16F.

20 kN wrote: Meh, many climbing mags have lost their academic and formal value (if they even had any in the first place). Climbing mag is better than some, like DPM, but pretty much all of the top mags out there seem to have ventured the way of SiurusXM pop-celebrity news, but for the climbing world. I cant remember the last time DMP's front cover reported on something other than some kid sending 5.16F.

I miss the old mags, their simple approach, honest stories and MOUNTAIN ascent coverage, not just bouldering and severe rock which is what sells these days to get the younger climbers to subscribe. Anybody remember Summit or Off Belay magazines from late 70's and 80's? I just recently cleaned out the garage of 30 some years of Climbing mags,,spent some time thumbing through a few old issues, so impressed with the Michael Kennedy years of publication. Things do change, and often for the sake of increased sales.

20kn, I don't really have a problem with that since that is just where the cutting edge ascents happen to be coming in at these days, and climbing is a sport about growth and progress, so I'm glad to get updates on the current growth and progress happening in climbing.

I will reiterate your sentiment though about climbing in general starting to look awful commercialized, as that is what I am hearing you say. I would also like to see that reduced to a more sustainable and rational level. For the record, I would say Climbing stands on the commercialization side of things, with a current emphasis on the "every man", which is apparently some roundabout argument against them being commercialized. I would just like to see a publication that had their act together, which catered to the "every man".

Also, could you please provide an example from any other climbing publication which is similar to this? It seems we have yet to hear any kind of response from Climbing. IIRC, in the past when folks in this kind of situation get called out like this, some kind of correction and apology are made, and given that it is typically an honest mistake, no harm is done to anyone's reputation. Why is this any different? Was an apology/correction made that I was unaware of? Seems like the kind of thing a simple "ooops, we messed up" would mostly fix, or better yet dedicate a small article or something to safe bolting practices next issue specifically pointing out the disinformation from last issue. It's not rocket science...

20 kN wrote: I cant remember the last time DMP's front cover reported on something other than some kid sending 5.16F.

25 issues and not one kid on the cover, unless you consider Adam Ondra and Sasha Digiulian kids: dpmclimbing.com/issues

DPM is focused on sport climbing and bouldering and designed to provide news of the sport for the worldwide audience that participates in, or enjoys reading about, those aspects of climbing. When Ondra established the world's hardest sport route, it seemed logical to put it on the cover. Or when Sasha became the first American woman to climb 9a (before it got downgraded). Of course there is also the cover of Mayan Smith-Gobat on the Salathe Headwall, the women's issue, the photo annual, training issue, etc...

It doesn't bother me that you dislike DPM. It sounds like you don't fit into the target audience. I just found it bizarre that you couldn't remember a front cover without a kid on it. Seems like maybe you've never picked one up?

newrivermike wrote: 25 issues and not one kid on the cover, unless you consider Adam Ondra and Sasha Digiulian kids: dpmclimbing.com/issues DPM is focused on sport climbing and bouldering and designed to provide news of the sport for the worldwide audience that participates in, or enjoys reading about, those aspects of climbing. When Ondra established the world's hardest sport route, it seemed logical to put it on the cover. Or when Sasha became the first American woman to climb 9a (before it got downgraded). Of course there is also the cover of Mayan Smith-Gobat on the Salathe Headwall, the women's issue, the photo annual, training issue, etc... It doesn't bother me that you dislike DPM. It sounds like you don't fit into the target audience. I just found it bizarre that you couldn't remember a front cover without a kid on it. Seems like maybe you've never picked one up?

I was being factitious when I said "kid" as I thought was implied when I said "5.16F." Anyway, my point is that many mags have become really stagnant, dry, unoriginal and repetitive. I agree with the need to report on the latest 5.15c send. That is a big deal for sure. But the problem is that some mags, like DPM, only report on the same topic over and over.

Let me give you an example. These are the last five Facebook updates from DPM:

- Weaver sends V14
- Honnold's free solo
- Levin sends 5.14c at Rumney
- Cladwall injured on Dawn Wall
- Siegrist sends 5.14a

I understand that a performance-based mag like DPM would tend to report on these types of subjects. However, some mags are shifting from a climbing-based informative magazine to a pop-celebrity news outlet, which is really unoriginal and boring. At least Climbing Mag mixes things up with a few technical articles and some stewardship articles here and there.

20kn, I think the main problem here is perhaps your view of cutting edge accomplishments as having been done exclusively by "pop celebrity" climbers. I have, in almost all instances, found this not to be true. If you are ever around those type of people, you will see that they are some of the most die-hard climbers out there. They pretty much exclusively have a dedication that makes your own look weak and pathetic in comparison, and that is why they are so much better at climbing rocks than guys like you or me.

You DO hear about the "pop celebrity" types too, but thankfully they are less frequent. If you ever hear someone say "so and so is just such a great billboard for pimping merchandise to the masses", they are likely talking about a "pop celebrity" type climber.

Climbing, for the record, gives the most press time to "pop celebrity" climbers. This is probably the main thing they actually contribute since you can find much better coverage of everything else through some other media source. Even About.com does a better job: climbing.about.com/b/2010/0…

Also, are the technical and stewardship articles you speak of the same type as the one mentioned in this post? If so, I would be absolutely fine if they stopped publishing those, and I think the community would be better off. It is a perfect example of Climbing prioritizing the celebrity status of a climber over good information in an attempt to sell more magazines.

Justin Edl wrote:20kn, I think the main problem here is perhaps your view of cutting edge accomplishments as having been done exclusively by "pop celebrity" climbers.

I think you're missing the point. We all know there are those rare beasts doing amazing things that we may never hear about outside of the fire ring. Because they eschew sponsorship, not wanting to be betrothed to that particular whorehouse, their feats are never reported on by DPM et all. This means they are stuck regurgitating the latest twerks of the Petzl approved sporto of the minute, happy to oblige as long as it means the full cover spreads are being bought up.

People still read Climbing Magazine?

I thought it came free with a beginner's climbing package.

Brad, nice way to try and use my own argument against me. I'm most definitely not missing the point. I wasn't aware that Climbing actually gave any kind of press to those climbers. As far as I was aware, they are the biggest part of that problem. Do you have any examples to support your claim that the other mags are worse about this?

I agree with you that it would be nice to see that reduced, or at least to see actual objective climbing skill be viewed as more important than how loud one screams or how well their image/story can sell merchandise to people. That is why I speak out against Climbing :)

Skitch, yes, Climbing is turning into a pamphlet, and it's directly because they lost their audience through being the worst publication out there, with the least integrity, and the highest proportion of "pop celebrity" climbers filling their pages. Apparently now even their how to and technical articles are crap. I know I have not picked up a Climbing magazine in nearly a decade, and I have probably clicked over to their website less than six times, and then only to laugh or acquaint myself with whatever kind of disinformation or vitriol they were vomiting up at the time, all the while making a point of avoiding all products that were heavily advertised there. Seems to be working ;)

M Sprague wrote:Any reason the titanium bolt is not countersunk? Ease of removal later? Not countersinking it some seems weaker to me and more liable to unclip a biner, not to mention more visibly obtrusive.

I know this is almost 2 years late but I hope this addition is valid and I hope it is seen.
I first copied that original 'Tortuga' bolt design (with permission from the original designers) about 6 years ago and had it pulled to death in all sorts of directions. I can absolutely confirm that the eye of the bolt and the weld should be recessed.
The reasons are that both the yield and the ultimate load is increased by 50% when recessed in about 12mm (bolt is made of 10mm round bar).
Recessing the bolt in this way will pretty much negate metal fatigue completely and give the longest possible service life.
When recessed in, my best guess for these bolts' service life would be longer than our service life.
We have moved on a bit from this design. For the latest Titanium bolts and anchors check out:
www.titanclimbing.com
www.facebook.com/titanclimbing
Spread the word, we are here to stay and push the bolting revolution forward