奧運/運動攀登

[大濟]

九月中旬「國際運動攀登協會」（IFSC）宣佈，將把抱石賽和速度賽排除，而先致力爭取難度賽（先鋒賽）單項搶進 2020 奧運。明年九月國際奧委會將作出決定。

國際奧委會運作受到很多 “枱面下” 因素的影響，運動本身的普及性、競賽的特徵和性質反而不是最關鍵的考量，我想，這也是 IFSC 決定先放棄抱石賽和速度賽的主因。無論如何，讓我們拭目以待，一旦難度攀登（先鋒攀登）列入2020奧運，這將會對國內運動攀登環境、市場、訓練方法、和制度都帶來一定的衝擊。

以下為 Climbing 雜誌網路版的報導：

http://www.climbing.com/news/lead-cl...0-olympic-bid/

Lead Climbing Only For 2020 Olympic Bid

By Dougald MacDonald

9/27/12 – The International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) has announced that its bid for climbing to enter the 2020 Olympic Games will focus exclusively on lead climbing. The IFSC will pursue neither bouldering nor speed climbing for the first Olympics with modern climbing.

The announcement was made at a press conference at the conclusion of the World Championships in Paris in mid-September. The IFSC also confirmed that two International Olympic Committee representatives had attended the finals of the World Championships.

The next major step for climbing’s Olympic bid comes in December, when the IFSC will make a formal presentation to the IOC Program Commission in December. The IOC will make its final decision on new sports for the 2020 Games in September 2013.

Explaining its decision to focus on lead climbing, the IFSC said it was forced to make a choice because of “the existing limit in terms of athletes” in the Olympics.

Lead climbing, the IFSC said, “is the historical and traditional climbing discipline. It is the expression of climbing most commonly perceived by the public, and a popular event among climbers and non-climbers. Lead events have also the most universal representation, and is the discipline that a majority of our national federations indicated as their favorite…and TV experts pointed out they need the height challenge.”

However, the IFSC added, “we do not exclude the fact that one day the three disciplines will be represented at the Olympic Games!”

底下則為 IFSC 官網報導：

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/?page_name=news-admin

Marco Scolaris (President of the IFSC) announced that IFSC proposed LEAD for both men and women for the 2020 Olympic Games, confirming the visit of two observers from the IOC during the two-day-finals.


"Lead is the historical and traditional climbing discipline. It is the expression of climbing most commonly perceived by the public and a popular event among climbers and non-climbers. Lead events have also the most universal representation and is the discipline that a majority of our national federations indicated as their favorite. Lead brings athletes beyond vertical in a continuous gravity challenge, and TV experts pointed out they need the height challenge. The choice of one discipline only is the result of the existing limit in terms of athletes. However we do not exclude the fact that one day the 3 disciplines will be represented at the Olympic Games!".

Created in 2007, the IFSC has spent its first years to build up a dynamic but solid structure, based on principles of good governance, universality, equal opportunities, transparency ; spectacular events ruled by highest standard of rules ; athletes inclusion in the IF decision-making processes at all levels ; anti-doping policies and athletes health and integrity protection. The potentiality for media interest and sponsor support is constant, exposure is increasing. The trend is upward, like in a climb progression is under control, staying true to the core values of the sport.

"The IFSC believes that the inclusion of sport climbing would benefit the Olympic Games by bringing a passionate young audience to the Games. Sport Climbing speaks to young people and gets them involved in a sport they can practice for the rest of their lives. It also speaks to each of us: men and women, boys and girls, kids, elders and paraclimbers... all play in and on the same field. Sport climbing is also unique as it is a vertical sport which uses body and mind to climb. Apparel and tools only exist to protect the climber if gravity wins: human beings are not birds, we can (in life chronological order) crawl, swim, climb, walk, run, jump, but not fly. World up is the IFSC motto...because humans are all natural born climbers. ", said M. Scolaris.

The next step in the Olympic bid is now a presentation to the IOC Program Commission in December in Lausanne, The final decision on the possible inclusion of a new sport in the 2020 Olympic Games, following the possible exclusion of a sport currently in the program, will be taken by the IOC in September 2013, during the Session in Buenos Aires.

[屁的吐]

是福還是禍呢？
拭目以待～

[大濟]

只要能進奧運就是褔，不應該是禍。

一旦攀岩進入奧運，除了國家、社會資源增加以外，一般國人對攀岩的認知也會改變 －－ 攀岩原來是 “正常” 的運動！觀念一旦改變，這種無形資源是非常珍貴的，能幫助擴長我們原本瘦瘠的金字塔基層，對臺灣攀岩運動有很深遠的影響，是褔不是禍。

有人會想到 “禍”，是擔心速度賽以及抱石運動因而式微。速度賽不談，我認為抱石不但不會式微，反而會更加普及。

抱石運動本來就是訓練爆發力、高難度動作、以及高強度肌耐力的不二法門，或許有不爬難度的抱石選手，但從來就沒有不爬抱石的難度賽選手。Stone 開張不到半年，由於高度、岩點變化夠，一些難度賽 “二軍” 選手實力一下子就躍升上來，on-sight 能力直逼 5.12c/d 甚至 5.13a/b，抱石訓練的重要性可見一般！（硬體的重要性也可見一般！）

臺灣的硬體環境比起歐美日韓原本就差一大截，所以要訓練出夠強的難度選手，抱石訓練（尤其室內）的份量只會增加不會減少。從另一個角度想，奧運也會激勵原本專注抱石的選手走向難度，抱石高手一旦走出去，多與外界互動，就會吸引更多的難度攀岩者投入抱石訓練， “抱石 vs. 難度” 就成了互補、相互增強，所以是褔不是禍。

－－－－－－－－－

萬一有 “禍”，我認為，那將會是 “人禍”、“制度禍”，這裡要談的是中華山協。

過去10－15年，臺灣攀岩實力有進步，但都是選手自己努力的結果，山協在選手最需要的硬體建設、軟體的訓練、觀念推廣、實質的鼓勵方面都作的不夠。唯一可以拿上臺面的是設定了很多的制度：團體會員、CBT、教練制度、很多，很多。

但是細觀每一個制度，其啓發性、誘導性、前瞻性都不夠，巨細靡遺都在強調管理面甚至限制面，“Don't” 遠超過 “Do”，簡言之，中華山協的制度在應該著力於耕耘和推廣的時候太強調管理，在應該兼具包容和學習的時候卻傾向偏執或自我設限。

這也難怪，山協文化早期來自於走山、遠征時代，後期又與臺灣體育官僚文化接軌。這種文化與運動攀登所強調的競賽性、年青化、短時效壓力大的訓練、活潑且個人主義掛帥的特質格格不入。問題是，一旦先鋒賽列入奧運，我擔心屆時山協又定了一大堆制度。“定制度” 可能是山協的專長，但太多的制度、太相信制度，人謂：“不適當的制度比暴政更可怕”，山協主事者不或時又會將個人意願凌駕制度，這是會惹禍的，是為 “人禍”、 “制度禍”。

所以建議在這運動攀登史上最重要時刻的前一年，山協最好的準備就是能多接觸不同的選手，跟她他們一起爬岩、訓練、比賽，而不只是 “看”、“規定”。上個週末內湖，民間團體自費辦了一個相當有意義的比賽，可是山協最重要的主事者連來都沒來，這是代表連 “看” 都不用看了，還是某個程度意義的肢體語言，還是 . . .？ 建議山協多接觸 “不同” 的選手，了解她他們 “不同” 的心路歷程和自我期許，臺灣選手的本質都很優秀、單純，不需要這麼多的制度，只要上位者能以身作則，加上誘因夠、能提供好的硬體環境就很好了！

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

另外幾項一併與先鋒賽考慮的運動是：棒球、空手道、直排輪、壘球、壁球、花式滑水、以及武術，加上先鋒賽，八項運動挑一項。

主辦國或多或少也會影響奧委會的決定，2020 夏季奧運主辦國入選三國：伊斯坦堡（土耳其）、馬德里（西班牙）、東京（日本）。

大哉問：先鋒賽到底會不會入選？

我，臺灣攀岩界又老又窮又蠢又 . . . 齒搖髮禿的廢物兼無賴，說：會！

[deacon]

何老師轉貼的連結
轉載自：http://www.rockandice.com/news/2267-...yond?showall=1

Why Sport is Better Than Bouldering for the Olympics

Women's lead wall, World Champs, Paris. Photo: Angie Payne
Climbing in America seems to be exploding in so many ways, and it might be another five or 10 years before we have the perspective to really understand the degree to which it, right now, is on the brink of some huge breakthrough.



Gyms are opening all over the country. Take a step back and remember that in 1993, there were fewer than five commercial climbing gyms in the U.S. Twenty years later, there are around 1,000 of them!

Mainstream media has taken a surprising interest in our little fringe sport. From the Washington Post to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times to 60 Minutes, dozens of in-depth articles and stories about real climbers and core climbing—not the usual Seven Summits type of gimmicky bullshit—have appeared in the last two years.

Climbing is on the shortlist for inclusion in the 2020 Olympics. Whether or not this is “good” for climbing may still be a fun thing for the usual online amateurs to debate, but the question has actually become entirely irrelevant. Because it’s happening. One way or the other, now or later. Immovable old-school trad object: meet the unstoppable force that is the bone-crushing competition-bred grommet with Olympic dreams.

Over 16,000 people were in attendance to watch over 330 climbers from 56 countries duke it out at the World Championships in Palais de Bercy, Paris, France. No, those aren’t soccer or NASCAR numbers, but compared to the old days when a climbing competition meant playing add-on and grab-ass with your bros and sixer of Pabst, those numbers are huge.

Also in attendance was a team of observers for the International Olympic Committee that is currently deciding which one of seven sports shortlisted for inclusion will actually make it into the 2020 Games. The IOC will announce its decision in September 2013.

In a press conference at the end of the World Championships, the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) divulged that its bid for Olympic inclusion would only focus on lead climbing. Bouldering and speed climbing aren’t being considered. Marco Scolaris, IFSC president, said:

"Lead is the historical and traditional climbing discipline. It is the expression of climbing most commonly perceived by the public and a popular event among climbers and non-climbers. Lead events have also the most universal representation and is the discipline that a majority of our national federations indicated as their favorite. Lead brings athletes beyond vertical in a continuous gravity challenge, and TV experts pointed out they need the height challenge. The choice of one discipline only is the result of the existing limit in terms of athletes. However we do not exclude the fact that one day the three disciplines will be represented at the Olympic Games!"

So, what does this mean? Well, I think we can all be thankful that speed climbing won’t be world’s first, or only, introduction to our sport. Not that speed climbing isn’t valid or cool, but to me it has as close of a connection to climbing as Taco Bell does to Mexican food. Quick, cheap, and you don’t really respect yourself afterwards.

But what about sport over bouldering? This is a more interesting question, especially for Americans, who have primarily focused on bouldering comps in recent years. The big names that you associate with American climbing competition—Alex Puccio, Alex Johnson, Daniel Woods, Paul Robinson—are primarily boulderers. And if this past weekend's World Cup, in which not a single American climber made it to finals, is any indication, then we have our work cut out for us if we want to see American climbers do well in the Olympics.

Many people think bouldering is more fun to watch. But I think that choosing sport climbing over bouldering is a smart decision. Ideally, you’d have both. But if I had to choose one, it’d be sport. Here’s why:




First, sport is harder than bouldering. I recently interviewed Cristian Brenna of Italy, one of the most veteran competition climbers in the world with an amazing 13-year run on the World Cup circuit. Over those years, he focused exclusively on competing, and he placed highly in both bouldering and sport. He explained to me how much easier it is to train for bouldering comps because you only need to focus on increasing power—that’s all that really matters when you just have to jump around between slopers and pinches for 10 feet. Also, training power requires more rest, more down time, for muscular supercompensation.

Training for sport is more time consuming, because you need to train both power and power-endurance. The training schedule is more than twice as demanding, Brenna said.

Further, route-reading is more complex in sport. So the activity is more cerebral, more intuitive, more moments where one split-second decision could mean the difference between being champion and falling. And because it takes longer to climb a route than a boulder problem, the duration of concentration and intensity needed is greater. This is one reason I find lead competitions more compelling to watch: you get to really study the climbers, see their thought processes, and observe their styles. In bouldering, the experience is more "A.D.D." for the observer. Climbing technique is less prominent, often masked by a stage that has a "three-ring circus" feel to it, in which a bunch of climbers are all simultaneously bounding between holds and falling onto mats. When spectating a bouldering comp, I often don't know who or what to look at.

Second, sport is more fair than bouldering. I recently read an interesting “article” on the website 8a.nu, written by the ultra-ripped Norwegian boulderer Morten Gulliksen, who thought that “randomness” (an interesting word choice) played too big a factor in the Paris bouldering World Champs. Basically, his general point was that route setters need to be more careful about what types of holds they use and moves they set in order to provide an equal playing field. I agree with his sentiment in general, but he lost me when he tried to lay down ground rules such as no “very slopey slopers”—which seems to me to be as random as anything else.

Sport routes are longer than boulder problems, so, with proper route-setting, difficulty can be more fairly derived in that it can be spread out over many moves. The longer the wall, the less need there is to thrown in one big, heinous stopper move that could potentially discriminate against guys like Ramon Julian Puigblanque—which happened and was a huge route-setting gaff, if you ask me, at the lead World Cup in Boulder last year. (I realize I am contradicting my point by bringing up this moment, but I think this gaff was an exception compared to the setting you see at most lead comps in Europe).

In general, there is less opportunity for “randomness,” to use Gulliksen’s strange term, on a route than a boulder. The playing field is more likely to be “level”—though of course it will never be perfectly fair—simply because the field is four times longer and the difficulty can be more spread out.

This all relates to the grading issues we encounter everyday, where it seems easier for climbers to agree that such and such route is 5.14a, while some boulder problems could be, on any given day, anything from V7 to V11 depending on conditions, which beta/eliminates the climber chooses and of course, the climber’s body size.

In my interpretation of Gulliksen’s article, he believes that bouldering competitions ultimately should be tests of pure strength: Who can pull the hardest on the worst holds? (Just so long as those holds aren’t too slopey, because that’s not fair—or something). If that’s the case, then why not just have a pull-up contest?

To me, real-life climbing isn’t just about being strong; it’s about being good and having vision. Competition ought to mirror this and, to me, sport will better showcase what it takes to be a good climber than bouldering. That said, ideally we'd have both in there as both sport and bouldering are rad and unique for their own myriad reasons.

I'm optimistic about the IOC's decision next year, but right now it's all just wishful thinking. If the Olympics could foster a climbing culture that values not just being strong, but being good, then that will be great for our sport: both in the spirit of competition, and also for creating climbers who will go on to climb outside and raise standards. Because ultimately outdoor performances—and first ascents—are what matters. Don't believe me? Consider this:

No one remembers who won the World Cup in 1997, but everyone knows who did the first ascent of Action Direct.

[大濟]

在上篇文章原來 Rock & Ice 的官網上，有位讀者回應："We will need bigger walls in the US to keep pace with the Europeans！”

臺灣也是：“We Taiwanese climbers especially need bigger walls in order to keep pace with the Rest of the World!”

這篇文章刻意丑化了抱石賽。抱石歷史悠久，就像傳攀或運攀，早就發展出自己的級數規範以及文化，難道只是因為IFSC決定不提申奧運就全盤否定抱石賽？這是譁眾取寵、犬儒之舉，更何況抱石是難度的基礎（尤其 5.11 以上），是不可或缺的訓練方法。

總而言之，為了奧運，臺灣攀岩界需要開始凝聚資源開始紮根，很多事情要作、可以作，其中最重要而且馬上必須作的是下列兩件事：硬體的改良和擴展青少年攀岩人口。如果這兩件事又必須排優先順序，硬體的改良應該是首要工作，推廣青少年攀岩次之。

熟悉IFSC世界級比賽的同好應該同意現在的比賽對高強度肌耐力的要求已經遠超一般人的想像，而比賽的地形、岩點的多樣化和複雜程度也幾乎涵蓋所有可能的攀岩動作（甚至慢慢的涵蓋裂隙），這些能力非在優良的岩場訓練不克其功。

臺灣根本沒有 “優良的岩場” 。優良岩場定義 －－ 室內、路線長度夠（至少60個點）、角度大、包含所有地形（slab、roof、corner、bulge、overhung、arête、 dihedral、overhanging chimney . . . ）而且每一地形至少都有足夠的空間作 3、4 個以上動作、更換路線容易、可使用的岩點或地形點包羅萬象。而一座優良岩場所需高度和空間不一定要大，好的設計才是關鍵。

這種岩場以臺灣現在（甚至未來）的攀岩市場，不可能由民間產生，這不是資金的問題，硬體所需成本不是那麼大，問題是不可能營利，所以唯一可能投資的是政府。這兩三年臺灣攀岩界如何凝聚共識說服政府投資，催生一座室內優良岩場，是現在開始就要作的事。

這件事難嗎？不容易！凝聚共識不容易，我們小池塘多，要一干小池塘裡的大魚放下本位主義，盱衡大局、一起規劃這種前瞻性工作需要非常專業、同時也具理想和道德說服力的領導者或領導團體。和政府打交道、要政府投資、面對一大堆官樣文章、與一干對攀岩似懂非懂的技術官僚折衝，更不提臺面上臺面下一定會牽扯到的包商和利益團體，這條路也不好走。

可是我是樂觀的。我這個又老又蠢又齒搖髮禿的攀岩廢物看盡臺灣攀岩界數十寒暑、是非成敗、秋月春風，感受到的是臺灣攀岩界的韌性和生命力，我們的選手絕大多數單純、執著、自我期許高，她他們一直在不好的環境下默默苦練，她他們對攀岩的熱愛和付出令人動容，這是凝聚共識最重要的礎石。

也許我們需要的只是一兩條大魚登高一呼，又也許是中華山協能改頭換面，拿出態度、魄力，共識即可凝聚，共識就是資源和力量，是可以影響、說服政府的。

但要快，不能等到明年9月，凝聚共識、資源、和力量，現在就要開始。

[A-YUNG]

http://www.rockandice.com/news/2267-...yond?showall=1

Why Sport is Better Than Bouldering for the Olympics
根據上面，何老師的連結文章，「為何運動攀登比抱石更適合推甄奧運」，我大略提一些重點，希望讓更多人可以了解。

作者訪問了一位義大利比賽經驗豐富的選手(先鋒賽和抱石賽選手) Cristian Brenna ，得到一些結論，在只能選擇一個項目的情況下，為什麼先鋒賽比抱石賽，更適合爭取奧運。

主要提了一些重點，不是分段的重點，是我認為比較重要的內容，括號內是我的說明：


1. 先鋒賽需要花費至少二倍的訓練時間，得同時訓練肌力和肌耐力。

2. 先鋒賽有較複雜的路線觀察，更需要用大腦思考(這很難說，抱石賽常讓人模稜兩可，得思考各種可能)， 更需要直覺反應(這我不認同，抱石賽在較高強度時，更容易干擾直覺反應)，更多決斷選擇(一路有較多不同的狀況判斷)！要求肌耐力，而且要求持續較長時間的專注力。更可看性，能吸引注意力，觀察攀岩者的類型、動態。

3. 先鋒賽比較容易達到公平，最近在8a網站有位挪威的抱石者Morten Gulliksen提到，在巴黎的世錦賽抱石項目，冠軍的取得，是亂數(randomness)「不可預期」佔了很重要的因素，(也就是成績會大起大落)。應該更小心的定線，提供一個公平的競爭環境！
(我也覺得女子抱石決賽的mantle，第三條吧，對常在巴黎附近楓丹白露爬的選手有優勢，結果兩位法國隊員都完攀，另外，就僅俄羅斯選手也完攀。)

4. 先鋒賽路線長，難度比較能分散在許多動作上，比較不會單純卡在一個彆扭的動作上，也比較不會像對西班牙的Ramon Julian Puigblanque這樣的選手(身高159cm)有身高的差別待遇。

5. 一般而言，對一條5.14a，比較容易取得多數人的認同，抱石級數則可能在 V7 to V11 之間讓人很難拿捏，往往決定於路線狀況。(我認為，有些「平衡動作，失誤率極高」，最近的世界盃，有些比賽「甚至沒有手點」，在比賽中可嘗試的次數時間有限，沒辦法定很難，dyno路線也是有「在有限時間內成功率」的問題。)而這些路線的特殊狀況，往往只是會淘汰掉特定身材的選手。(如矮選手有無法及遠的問題，高瘦的選手，手臂力矩長，可能有lock off較弱的問題，體重較重的選手，可能有crimp比較弱的問題)。

6. 作者對挪威的抱石者Gulliksen的文章詮釋是：抱石賽最終還是考驗選手，誰能在最爛的點，拉到最大的力量！如果是這樣，那不如比賽拉單槓就好了。

7. 作者又說：對我而言，實際上的攀岩，不應該只強壯而己，而是不僅要爬得(技巧)好，還要有足夠的洞察力，比賽不就是該反映這些！而且我認為先鋒賽比抱石賽更能展現「技巧好的取得優勢」。

8. 最後他表示對爭取奧運的結果是樂觀的，(而明年九月將可見到國際奧委會的決定)。如果奧運可以提昇崇尚技巧而不只是強的文化，對運動攀登的幫助，將不僅是比賽，同時還能對戶外攀岩的級數提昇有所助益，而相較比賽更重要的是極限級數的提昇和首攀，因為，沒有人記得1997的世界盃冠軍是誰，但每個人都記得Action Direct(第一條9a, 5.14d)是誰首攀的。

[A-YUNG]

我在看這篇文章的時候，這段沒有想得很仔細。

(Just so long as those holds aren’t too slopey, because that’s not fair—or something)

今天看到在韓國的先鋒決賽，才仔細想為什麼路線太滑會不公平，也可能是我懶得解釋，因為也得要有適當的例子吧，我認為先鋒賽的路線，應該是允許些微的失誤，甚至爬得稍微沒有效率，也應該可以補救的，因為先鋒賽就只有一次墜落機會，太滑的點，大家的失誤率都差不多，跟太難的路線一樣，技巧好的選手，無法展現優勢。

有興趣的人，請看看以下連結影片中 1'35"之後這位攀岩者，就是西班牙的好手(也就是身高159的Ramon Julian Puigblanque)，第二位完攀5.15a，多次世界盃冠軍。他在爬完這種路線之後，表現得很失望，猛抽繩子，輕搖頭，表情顯得不高興。我猜他不喜歡這條路線，途中曾在第一段懸岩一度驚險的腳滑掉，堅持了許久才撐過去。其實1996年之前，當年的UIAA就有意要爭取世界盃了，1996在法國的奧運就有攀岩表演賽。記得我當時的討論就曾說過，定線員如果別有所圖，攀岩很難很公平！ (之前在青海世界盃，加拿大Sean McColl，在爬完複賽之後，不久馬上被主持人採訪，他說道：I felt mad, ...I can't find my foothold...hope the final would be better…etc, 我覺得生氣，…我找不到我的腳點...希望決賽會好一點……)，他很幸運，結果他贏了冠軍，但那一場Ramon Julian Puigblanque卻複賽滑掉，名次排到約二十名，如果我是他下次不來亞洲比賽了。

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M29Oya8TDhs
10-21 決賽影片

[kuanchung]

[大濟]

根據英國 SportsPro 雜誌最近網路投票的結果，有可能進入2020奧運的8項運動中，運動攀登排名第四（5.51%），遠低於直排輪（39.7%）、空手道（36.06%）、以及花式滑水（14.75%），只領先棒壘球（2.53%）、壁球（1.12%）、和武術（0.34%）。

我對 SportsPro 雜誌不熟，不過看起來它鎖定的讀者群皆是 “運動商人”，運動商人的看法與國際奧委會不會一樣？這次投票人數約略只有數百人。

以下是我所讀訊息的出處，Climbing 網路版：

http://www.climbing.com/blog/climbin...y-sports-pros/
（括弧內的數據是我看了 SportsPro 官網後所補充的）

Climbing Dissed For Olympics by Sports Pros
By Dougald MacDonald

Which new sport would people in the business of sports prefer to see in the 2020 Olympics? Definitely not sport climbing（運動攀登）. At least that’s the conclusion you’d reach based on an online poll by SportsPro magazine. The poll, which has been active for about two weeks and has received hundreds of responses, showed climbing second to last in the rankings on October 19, with only about 0.4% (5.51%) of the votes.

Roller sports (直排輪) leads the polling of visitors to sportspromedia.com, with nearly 50% (39.7%) of the votes on October 19. Karate（空手道） is a strong second, with about 45% (36.06%). The remaining five sports up for consideration for the 2020 Olympic Games are only polling about 5% (25%) all combined, with climbing trailing baseball/softball, squash, and wakeboard. Only wushu, a category of Chinese martial arts, is farther behind. ( 投票結束結果：壁球: 1.12%, 滑水 14.75%, 武術: 0.34%).

Perhaps needless to say, there are many factors that might influence the International Olympic Committee’s decision on new Olympic sports, and the opinion of sports professionals might not count for much. But the very strong sentiment for roller sports and karate is nonetheless interesting. The IOC’s decision will be made in September 2013.

SportsPro is a British magazine that is distributed to executives of teams, leagues, arenas, federations, and other sports businesses worldwide.

SportsPro 的官網：
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/p...ympic_games）

[大濟]

今天（12／19）將有5位 IFSC 代表在瑞士的 Lausanne，向國際奧委會呈現運動攀登的價值以及獨有風格，以爭取進入2020夏季奧運，5位代表是：Debra Gawrych，Jérôme Meyer，Sean McColl，Evgeniya Malamid，以及主席 Marco Scolaris。

請見以下連結：
http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/?page_name=news-admin
http://www.climbing.com/news/climbin...nter-olympics/

[A-YUNG]

很有意思，IFSC 竟派出幾位非常年輕的現役選手當代表，出席會議。

[大濟]

IFSC 改變主意，提出把難度、抱石、速度三項合一的比賽進軍奧運，類似現在的世界錦標賽（World Championships），但將只有男女各30人參加奧運，三項合一後的總成績決定名次。

IFSC 在去年12月就向國際奧委會提出這個新計劃，更改只有難度賽的原先想法，這 “三合一” 的計劃也將在今年五月正式在國際奧委執行委員會提出。五月的國際奧委執行委員也會把原先包含運動攀登等8項可能納入2020奧會的運動項目挑出最後的3項，九月再決定最後1項。

依據報導，IFSC 作這個更改是因為一些國際奧委的建議，他們認為運動攀登三合一的比賽比較吸引觀眾。

相關新聞請見：

http://www.climbing.com/news/new-oly...ead-and-speed/

[kuanchung]

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.p...=58&Itemid=167
投票百分比..請參考..
尚未截止..請努力投票

[屁的吐]

推~大家快投票

[大濟]

可惜，運動攀登無緣進2020奧運，請見 Climbing 網路版報導：

http://www.climbing.com/news/climbin...games-running/

[anmin]

國際奧委會（IOC）前天在摩洛哥年會通過40條奧運建議計畫，包含取消28個運動種類上限，且不受當屆奧運舉行前7年就須獲准列入賽程規則限制，主辦國有權提出增設1項以上項目申請 ... 國際奧會新任主席巴哈曾提出尊重奧運主辦國人氣運動項目構想，希望透過增設高人氣運動項目，讓各屆主辦國有更多人到場觀賽，提高奧運人氣和經濟效益...

讀賣新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/olympic/202...tml?from=hochi

自由時報
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/sports/paper/837664

這篇報導主要當然是是在說 "野球 (棒球)", 但 "運動攀登" 有沒有可能趁這個機會被日本人偷渡進去呢~

[anmin]

自由時報報導

奧運》國際奧會宣佈 支持棒壘球重返東京奧運
2016/06/02 10:13

[記者林柏辰／綜合報導]
國際奧會執委會今日表態，支持空手道、滑板、**攀岩**、衝浪、與棒壘球五項新項目為2020年東京奧運正式項目，若能通過8月在里約舉辦的投票，將會成為近代奧運史上最全面性的進程。
http://sports.ltn.com.tw/news/breakingnews/1716193

終於~

看來 Ashima 做代言人的魅力無法擋~

[A-YUNG]

https://m.facebook.com/hashtag/climbingolympics