Because the speed specialists have been such a visible wildcard element during the qualification comps I think what people haven't mentioned (or possibly realised) is that there won't be any speed specialists in the olympic finals. Nearly all have been whittled away during the olympic qualification comps, and the small number of speed specialists who made it to the olympics will be whittled away during the olympic qualification round. The only way this won't happen is if one of the speed specialists massively ups their boulder or lead ability in the next 6 months. Unlikely.Therefore that's going to change the dynamic in the olympic final because there isn't likely to be a speed specialist hoovering up the guaranteed speed win. There's now a good chance a climber who wins either the bouldering or lead may also take the win or 2nd in the speed. During the qualifying comps this probably wouldn't happen and we saw how it skewed the field. So for good boulderers/lead climbers - which all finalists will be - being decent at speed will be a big advantage. Possibly more to gain from improving at speed than at the other disciplines given how closely matched all the finalists are likely to be in bouldering and lead.Could have done with some pre-qualifying, qualifying comps to whittle away the speed specialists, before whittling away the rest in qualifying, until there were none left to be whittled away during the qualifying round of the olympic finals..
I find the knockout nature of the speed terrible.I just cannot fathom how a format where the fastest climber is not guaranteed to wind the speed is sensible.The only thing speed has going for it is the concept that the fastest wins.Only they might not
I quite enjoyed the Pan American comps. The women's comp was really good and I thought the Olympics place was well deserved by Yip. The men's comp was a bit disappointing overall I thought, boulders and route all too easy. Brilliant effort by Duffy but it would have been better to have more separation of the American men, especially on the boulders.What follows is extremely nerdy and probably quite sad, but in case anyone is remotely interested:Since the Olympics format was announced I've been wondering why they chose to have the speed as a head-to-head final rather than a time trial. In my opinion a time trial style comp were the best of three attempts is used would give a better representation of speed climbing skills. It seems unfair that climbers can place below their rivals who climbed the route more slowly.I've done a bit of investigating as to whether I am right about the head-to-head vs time trial system for splitting climbers based on how fast they can climb - and the effect on the overall ranking. Here is a graph showing the overall place (speed x boulder x lead) attained by climbers using the head-to-head vs time trial system in Hachioji, Toulouse and the Pan American comp:In most cases using either system for speed ranks climbers in more or less the same order. But there are some pretty notable exceptions. For example, in Hachioji Futaba Ito came 5th in the speed despite having the second fastest time. Using the head-to-head system her overall position was 7th, below Nonaka and Noguchi. Had the time trial system been used she would have placed 3rd - below Noguchi but above Nonaka. So perhaps if the time trial system had been used Ito might have been selected rather than Nonaka.Obviously this is pretty rough and ready as some climbers may have climbed conservatively in the speed knowing they had a weak opponent or had no chance of winning. Overall, the time trial system seems inherently fairer to me and I cannot see any benefit of the head-to-head system, other than that it might be more spectacular for the audience - a pretty poor rationale when competition is supposed to be about who is the best a comp climbing.
Quote from: Potash on November 30, 2020, 12:01:32 pmI find the knockout nature of the speed terrible.I just cannot fathom how a format where the fastest climber is not guaranteed to wind the speed is sensible.The only thing speed has going for it is the concept that the fastest wins.Only they might notBeing fastest in the 100m heats wins you nothing if you can’t reproduce it in the semis and the final.
Being fastest in the 100m heats wins you nothing if you can’t reproduce it in the semis and the final.
There is a real issue with multiplying the results of an athlete vs athlete comp with athlete vs the wall. It's the bonus multiplier effect.The multiplication system transfers and multiplies the quirks of knockout rounds to the results of the other rounds.So if one person slips and false starts, their direct competitor gets a bonus multiplier across all three rounds, and everyone else is disproportionately disadvantaged, across all three rounds.
The issue is less with people doing badly, and more with their rival profiting more than the rest of the field from their mistake.I'm sure there is maths to explain this effect, but I'm not a mathematician, so...In the speed comp, Bob expects to do badly as he has the slowest personal record. But his rival (the fastest on paper) is disqualified with a false start. Bob gets through to the semis. His next opponent also messes up and Bob is through to the finals. Bob loses by a mile, but even though he records the slowest time of the day, he now has a ranking of 2. So two competitors fluffed it, but Bob benefited more than anyone else (unlike in bouldering or lead where everyone else would benefit equally).Whatever ranking he now achieves in bouldering and lead will be multiplied by only 2. Which effectively means the false starts have disadvantaged everyone except Bob (and the winner of the speed round of course, who was delighted to face the slowest competitor in the finals!). Everyone else is now playing catch up to someone who did nothing to deserve having such a low score.The issue is that there are two different ranking systems which don't multiply fairly - the man vs man knockout round of speed, and the man vs wall rounds of bouldering and lead. If the competitors in speed were ranked by the fastest time they achieved (ie. man vs wall), it wouldn't be an issue.**Here's an idea - in this scenario you could still have knockout rounds, which would reward those who progressed to semis and finals with more chances to record a faster time. Best of both worlds?
Rishat Khaibullin and Ludovico Fossali are in the mens, both speed climbers. Aleksandra Mirosław and Iuliia Kaplina are in the womens.Rishat got bronze at the world champs combined, with a score of 40, 1 x 8 x 5. Aleksandra came 4th with 1 x 8 x 8. It's quite possible there'll be a speed specialist in the olympic finals I think.In qualifying a score of 1 x 20 x 20 = 400, which is better than say 8 x 8 x 8.
Ludo is a speed specialist but pretty much fluked his way to winning the World Championships in Hachioji.
Agreed, but this is a criticism of the scoring system rather than the speed format.
The same thing could happen in the bouldering, especially with only 3 problems. Say you misread a move on the “easy” problem that everyone else does.
I think the criticism of the speed format derives from us not being able to relate to it in the same way as we can with the other events, but the same issue exists across all 3 events.
Agreed, but this is a criticism of the scoring system rather than the speed format. The same thing could happen in the bouldering, especially with only 3 problems. Say you misread a move on the “easy” problem that everyone else does. I think the criticism of the speed format derives from us not being able to relate to it in the same way as we can with the other events, but the same issue exists across all 3 events.
Quote from: Stabbsy on November 30, 2020, 02:38:33 pmAgreed, but this is a criticism of the scoring system rather than the speed format. The same thing could happen in the bouldering, especially with only 3 problems. Say you misread a move on the “easy” problem that everyone else does. I think the criticism of the speed format derives from us not being able to relate to it in the same way as we can with the other events, but the same issue exists across all 3 events.r-mans post explains better - but fucking up an easy problem in bouldering does not have the same effect as in speed as it's not knock out.
Or maybe people think this is a good idea. You would after all get the head to head aspect of performing monkeys that some seem to like.
The only reason I can think of for the current format is that they think it makes it more entertaining.
Quote from: bigironhorse on November 30, 2020, 04:11:54 pmThe only reason I can think of for the current format is that they think it makes it more entertaining.Isn’t the current format how speed comps have been run for years or have they changed it for the Olympics?
But the real scandal in Moscow was the much too easy final lead route. This had quite a big impact on the results, too. For me, in a lead comp, one should be able to climb in the personally most efficient rhythm, rather than having the focus on progressing as quickly as possible. For more endurance oriented lead climbers, going fast certainly is not the most efficient style.
Let’s be clear here, I understand the points you’re all making
Quote from: Stabbsy on November 30, 2020, 04:44:53 pmLet’s be clear here, I understand the points you’re all makingYou clearly don't.
