CClaude wrote:If Simkin is asking an honest question why doesn't Alex Honnold make more money than he does (or for that matter Tommy Caldwell). Its because in the US, fringe sports athletes aren't valued, irregardless of their athletic achievements. Some are actually making good on endorsements, but the vast majority of Americans (sorry for being US-centric) could care less about Alex Honnold or Tommy Caldwell, outside of the 15 min of fame on 60 Minutes or such,. The vast majority of Americans care about Kim Kardasian or some ego-centric pro sport athlete/brat; and without that kind of exposure, the value of sponsorships won't draw that kind of money either.

Simkin wrote:

CClaude wrote:If Simkin is asking an honest question why doesn't Alex Honnold make more money than he does (or for that matter Tommy Caldwell). Its because in the US, fringe sports athletes aren't valued, irregardless of their athletic achievements. Some are actually making good on endorsements, but the vast majority of Americans (sorry for being US-centric) could care less about Alex Honnold or Tommy Caldwell, outside of the 15 min of fame on 60 Minutes or such,. The vast majority of Americans care about Kim Kardasian or some ego-centric pro sport athlete/brat; and without that kind of exposure, the value of sponsorships won't draw that kind of money either.

Finally we stopped debating the virtue of camping in a van at the trail-head by the pit-toilet and started to address the real issue.

So you think the reason is that the American populace will not watch extreme sports if they will be broadcast? The culprit is not with the people who determine what is broadcast? The woman which you mentioned in your posting would not appear on TV 60 years ago. And not because people would not watch, but because of censorship.

Simkin wrote:So you think the reason is that the American populace will not watch extreme sports if they will be broadcast? The culprit is not with the people who determine what is broadcast? The woman which you mentioned in your posting would not appear on TV 60 years ago. And not because people would not watch, but because of censorship.

Bob Burd wrote: It's about money. That which brings in the most money wins.

Bob Burd wrote:Safe rock climbing is one of the most boring things to watch. Even sitting in El Cap meadows with a pair of binoculars gets old.

Marmaduke wrote:Currently, "Everest" is 52nd for highest grossing films of 2015 and Meru is 138th. I'm surprised Everest isn't higher, a good amount of advertising dollars were spent on that movie but it didn't open in many theaters (545). Meru did not have much advertising and opened in very few theaters (7). By contrast the top 5 grossing films each opened in about 4,100 theaters.

Woodswalker wrote:Watching people climb cliffs is boring. Yawn.

Honnold lives out of his van, spending less than a thousand dollars per month

brianhughes wrote:Celebrity Apprentice Cliff-Climbing With the Stars !! Put it on TV and they will watch.

Simkin wrote:

Dave B wrote:I don't want to judge or be a dick, but your worldview seems oddly comfort-centric to be contributing to a mountaineering forum.

Even if I were comfort-centric, as you wrote, this would not be incompatible with mountaineering. It is not acrophobia, right?

Dave B wrote:Anyways, of course you can camp at trail heads. Maybe not major ones in the busiest national parks in the US, but you can certainly camp at many a trail head near many a climbing area.

Honnold's major ascents were at Yosemite and Zion.

Dave B wrote:As far as why don't climbers make more money? Dunno. Don't care. I'm inspired by Alex, Tommy, Renan, Jimmy, Conrad, Cedar, Chris, Aaron, Colin etc etc. for their commitment to the sport. The commitment in the absence of some desire for wealth is what is inspiring.

Why don't care? This great country on God's green earth should reward high-achievers, shouldn't it?

Dave B wrote:Professional climbing would only suffer from NFL/NBA type pay schedules, IMO.

Professional climbers will not agree with you.

Woodswalker wrote:What makes you think that individuals are entitled to get money because they are good at their hobby? Most people work for a living.

Simkin wrote: So you think the reason is that the American populace will not watch extreme sports if they will be broadcast?

Simkin wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:Currently, "Everest" is 52nd for highest grossing films of 2015 and Meru is 138th. I'm surprised Everest isn't higher, a good amount of advertising dollars were spent on that movie but it didn't open in many theaters (545). Meru did not have much advertising and opened in very few theaters (7). By contrast the top 5 grossing films each opened in about 4,100 theaters.

Do you think that if those mountaineering films were not censored by the owners of cinemas and distribution chains they would be as successful as the top grossing movies?