[Duma]

r-man already explained it better than I could. If you think that a mistake on a boulder problem has a comparable effect you haven't understood. I'm not trying to be rude.

[abarro81]

I have to agree with Duma - your examples in boulder and lead don't address the core point... In boulder/lead, the second best on the day comes second*. In speed, it's quite feasible for the second best on the day to come 5th due to getting knocked out in the first head-to-head. Blowing the easy problem or dropping the first pokey move of the route means you weren't the best on the day, and while your fuck-up or wonder-fluke might influence the combined results, it influences all other competitors in that particular event in an equal manner, whereas in speed a wonder-fluke/wonder-fuck-up disproportionally influences the results of one athlete (your rival in that round) more than the other athletes.

*this is potentially not true when speed is used to decide the lead event, since in that scenario it can matter a lot whether you're out early or not, as we saw in Moscow - coming out last means you know that you need to smash the fuck on due to multiple tops. This can be mitigated with impeccable setting.

If you wanted to defend the speed format, there might be a vaguely viable argument if it's seeded based on speed qualies (e.g. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc.) - this means that the likely advantage is gained by doing well in qualies, as per the other events where coming out last might be considered an advantage (at least in some scenarios, like lead where multiple people top). This doesn't address the wonder-fluke/dropper issue, nor that the second best in the round actually comes 5th, but does point out that things aren't entirely equal in the other formats either, and you could then argue that the "best on the day" metric is a combo of both qualies and finals rather than purely the final...

[r-man]

Stabbsy, you are talking about one person suffering from their own bad luck within the rules of the game. Sucks for them. Everyone else gets lucky.

My point is that slip ups in speed have a very different type of impact.

If Igor has a slip up in speed, Bob benefits, but only Bob. Because of the multiplication, Bob also gets a boost to his other scores. Igor’s slip has improved Bob’s bouldering and lead scores, but only Bob’s. Seems a little unfair.

If Igor fluffs it in bouldering or lead, Bob does not get rewarded any more than the rest of the field.

[petejh]

Clearly the solution is for JB and DanM to discover a fatal flaw in the design concept of autobelays which nullifies their compliance to the relevant EN standard. Meaning no more speed round.. If it wasn't for those pesky kids etc..

Or as others have said just run it as a time trial.

[webbo]

Or would it better to run it like some of track cycling events where they do a time trial of the distance which then seeds them  in to quarter finals and so on.

[Sidehaas]

The ideal solution would be to have an 8 lane speed wall, of course this is logistically impossible - a time trial is the next best thing in my opinion.

Is this really logistically impossible? We are talking about the Olympics, there is a lot of money involved. The speed wall is a simple flat structure and you could squeeze the routes a bit more than currently so I don't see why 4, 6 or even all 8 climbers on the wall together is impractical. I bet the wall would still be cheaper than the best lead walls. You only need it for the top competition venues.
The more climbers at once, the less the unfair relative advantage to competitors from an individual mistake. Obviously if everyone is on the wall at once it disappears completely.
I agree with what others have said about the unfair advantage given to the competitor of someone who makes a mistake in the early rounds. However, I think the race format and the fact that mistakes sorely cost an individual make the whole thing more exciting. I think a straight time trial, especially with multiple attempts, would be really dull. I find the mental challenge of the speed competition more interesting than the physical in terms of the challenge it gives to the best lead/boulder climbers. A race as opposed to time trial is also consistent with other Olympic speed or any other racing) events where the point is not to get the faster time over a day, but to win the race in the 10 seconds that matters.

[Stabbsy]

I have to agree with Duma - your examples in boulder and lead don't address the core point... In boulder/lead, the second best on the day comes second.

Agree that my lead example was weak (and I acknowledged it as such in my post). However, my boulder example was a climber who got closest to 2 out of 3 problems (2 zones, no one else getting any) and failed to top the one that everyone else got for whatever reason. That climber would come last based on the value system that we've chosen to adopt - favouring tops over progress on problems - but they were the best climber on the majority of the problems tried. So I'd disagree that the second best on the day will necessarily come second in bouldering because it relies too much on our definition of "best".

If Igor fluffs it in bouldering or lead, Bob does not get rewarded any more than the rest of the field.

So here's where we disagree, because I'd say how much Bob gets rewarded depends on his bouldering position. If Igor's slip up means he drops from 1st to 8th, then the person in second jumps to first and their score halves. The person in third jumps to second and their score reduces by 33% and so on, with the person in eighth jumping to seventh and getting a 12.5% reduction in score. Disproportionate effects depending on relative position. Whether those disproportionate effects on score translate through to disproportionate effects on position is less obvious, but you would expect that it would to some extent.

If Igor has a slip up in speed, Bob benefits, but only Bob. Because of the multiplication, Bob also gets a boost to his other scores. Igor’s slip has improved Bob’s bouldering and lead scores, but only Bob’s. Seems a little unfair.

Again, I don't agree here. Let's say Igor is the best speed climber in the final and he's drawn against Bob in R1. You also have the second best speed climber, Jakob. Jakob has never beaten Igor in a speed comp. Assuming all goes to form, the best Jakob can hope for is 2nd if the draw works in his favour and he doesn't meet Igor until the final. Igor has a slip up and, you're right, Bob benefits. But so does Jakob, because he's gone from second to first and his bouldering and lead scores have just halved.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think the speed format is perfect, but I do think the multiplicative system is the bigger issue.

[Aussiegav]

I think the speed climbing format is fine as it is. Look at hurdles or to a lesser extent steeple chase. On paper, you could be the fastest but execution when it matters is essential. Which arguably is the same as lead climbing.


I’d never watched the speed climbing prior to the weekend. I think it’s very exciting, but IMO, it’s probably better as an individual stand alone event. It’s a very different skill set to lead climbing.

I think the current system is like a pentathlon. Where those who are very effective in all formats will do best.

I’d like to see some kind of heptathlon where speed, lead and bouldering is included with some extra events.
I’d also  throw in dry tooling as an event, a campus event and fingerboard event. 

[abarro81]

Stabbsy - your response still kind of misses the point. Create any scoring system you want for boulder, and the second best under that system (tops, progress, whatever) comes second.
 The same is not necessarily true in speed, where the second fastest can come 5th. Surely in no world is the consistently second fastest not the second best at speed simply because of luck of the draw?

Igor/Bob: As I pointed out, while combined may be altered disproportionately, the results of the individual discipline are not. Which is what r-man was pointing out. Your argument against multiplication doesn't address the argument about disproportionate impact within a discipline, which is a separate issue, and which is where the head to head is an issue

[petejh]

It also seems *more* disproportionate due to the existence in climbing of climbers who only excel at speed, versus climbers who excel at both boulder and lead. The speed specialist has a very high probability of beating anyone who isn't a speed specialist. (Barring slips, but that goes for anyone). The same probability of beating everyone else isn't there for bouldering or lead rounds, where climbers are more equally matched - even Ondra etc.

Perhaps that difference between the proportion of climbers who excel at speed, versus the proportion who excel at boulder and lead will lessen over time due to the pressures of trying to conform to comp formats that disproportionately reward speed. Perhaps not.

You could think of it another way: a final comprised entirely of speed specialists (who are 'relatively' poor at lead and boulder), except for one competitor who excels at lead and who virtually always wins their round, and who can be relied upon to consistently come last in the other two rounds. They'd still end up with 64 points. The speed climbers would probably think it's a fair format.

Which suggests it isn't the format per se that's the problem, it's that the values which the format gives to different disciplines don't align with the skillsets we as climbers value most highly.

[galpinos]

I'm torn. I like the fact that having a multiplier means that a win is massive and it really incentivises high ranking. I also think the head to heads is the only way of making the speed round a "spectacle" but being the second best speed climber but only getting 5th is an annoying scenario.

I guess the way to look at speed is that the "Final" is the actual last race and the rest of the rounds are just heats you have to win.

[Will Hunt]

Is the problem with comparing head to head speed with heats in a sprint not that speed climbing involves an element of risk which increases significantly as you try and give a better effort?
Runners might have to expend more or less effort depending on who they're up against in a heat, and this might affect their recovery for the next round, but it's unlikely that they'll have to try hard and end up tripping over and getting eliminated. As speed climbers go faster they have to use sequences that might be riskier or they might catch a hold badly/miss a hold etc which will result in them being knocked out.
Slopestyle gets around this by letting everyone have three runs where they can go for the risky stuff in the first ones and do something more conservative in the last if they've fucked up the first. That's the suggested time trial format for speed, but comes with the obvious disadvantage of being even more boring to watch than head to head speed. To mitigate the boredom and indignity of watching the world's best climbers trying to go up a 5+ faster than each other, could you set them off in reverse rank order and superimpose a horizontal line on the wall that climbs to the top at pace of the fastest individual so far? Like watching downhill skiing and seeing if they're green/red going through the splits.

[dunnyg]

Downgrading the speed route now, cant help yourself can you, you lanky scrittle botherer 

[sdm]

Is the problem with comparing head to head speed with heats in a sprint not that speed climbing involves an element of risk which increases significantly as you try and give a better effort?
Runners might have to expend more or less effort depending on who they're up against in a heat, and this might affect their recovery for the next round, but it's unlikely that they'll have to try hard and end up tripping over and getting eliminated. As speed climbers go faster they have to use sequences that might be riskier or they might catch a hold badly/miss a hold etc which will result in them being knocked out.

The biggest difference for runners or swimmers is that their heats have 8 people, not 2, and that the fastest 2 or 3 go through, together with a small number of fastest losers.

This massively reduces the variance and the advantage of being in a particular heat over another.

There is still potential for one athlete to make an error and get knocked out by pushing too hard (false starts, disqualifications etc). This isn't a problem there as there isn't one specific person who gets a massive boost from it despite having done nothing to earn it. Similarly, getting a bad draw and drawing Usain Bolt in the first round isn't such a problem because there is more than one place up for grabs from the heat.

The problem with the speed climbing format is that the heats are 1v1 so the luck of the draw plays a much bigger part, with someone's speed score relying massively on who they are drawn against, not on how well they performed. The multiplication then amplifies the effect so someone who benefits unfairly in the speed might not need to do that much in the bouldering/lead to win the overall title, despite not being the best performer by any reasonable metric.

It's just a shit system. Hopefully it will be the last time it is used.

[WillRobertson]

I'm pretty sure there us seeding for the spend round in combined finals? Based only on the pairings for the recent Euro Champs where I'm pretty sure the fastest four speed climbers in the final (based on combined qualis i think?) each faced one of the slowest four.
Partly why Bosi's first round race against Sascha (4th & 5th fastest in qualis if i remember correctly) was so crucial.

I still don't like the format though, i like the suggestion above of following a similar format to that used in track cycling - best of both worlds imo.

[bigironhorse]

I'm pretty sure there us seeding for the spend round in combined finals? Based only on the pairings for the recent Euro Champs where I'm pretty sure the fastest four speed climbers in the final (based on combined qualis i think?) each faced one of the slowest four.
Partly why Bosi's first round race against Sascha (4th & 5th fastest in qualis if i remember correctly) was so crucial.

I still don't like the format though, i like the suggestion above of following a similar format to that used in track cycling - best of both worlds imo.

Yes they do use seeding and that probably helps a bit, but there are still major descrepancies sometimes. To reuse my example from the other channel: in the pan american comp womens final, the climber with the second fastest time came 7th in the speed round, whereas the second slowest climber came 2nd - doesn't seem right to me when its so easy to implement a time trial system. The caveat here though is that there are a few reasons why people can win with a slow time, for example racing a much slower climber, the other climber falling or false starting - so in the head to head system climbers will not record their fastest times in every run.

From what Graeme posted on the other channel it sounds like the IFSC weren't allowed to change the rules by the Olympics people. Hopefully once the Olympics is over a better solution can be found (like not trying to combine speed with the other disciplines!).

[bigironhorse]

In a slight defence of the current system, it does usually sort the climbers by time ~+/- 1 place. In Tolouse, the ranking was exactly the same whether you used head to head or time trial.

[GraemeA]

Ludo is a speed specialist but pretty much fluked his way to winning the World Championships in Hachioji.

How do you fluke your way to a World Championship?

He qualified in 10th, which is about par for him. Then in his 4 races in the final there was 1 FS and 2 falls (or visa versa) and in the other race there was a massive mistake by his opponent, or something like that.

[GraemeA]

The 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?

there is a slight modification. In World Cups there are no run off's to dertermine 5th/6th or 7th/8th, qualification times are used.. In Olympic format these race are run so that all athletes do the same number of races.

[GraemeA]

Can anybody explain how the speed climbing pairing are determined?

I assume they are seeded in some way.

This must be based on a speed only seeding right?

Qualification times are used to determine the seeding. The theory is that the gold medal race is between 1st and 2nd fastest from the quals

[highrepute]

In defense of speed.

It's a head to head event not a time trial.

Like the FA cup. You draw the eventual winner in the 3rd round and lose when otherwise you would've made it through to the final. well tough luck.

Sometimes the best don't make it and a plucky minnow does. That's what makes it so great.

[Potash]

If its so good, why don't we pair up the climbers for the bouldering and run it the same?

Its not the speed climbing that I object to per say, its the fact that its assessed using a totally different methodology. Its like doing a decathlon where pole vault and hurdles are head to head whilst the rest are standard.

[tomtom]

If its so good, why don't we pair up the climbers for the bouldering and run it the same?

Its not the speed climbing that I object to per say, its the fact that its assessed using a totally different methodology.

Speed is clearly less similar to the other two... but IIRC Speed has quite a long standing history / series of competitions so the combined event is there because the IOC wouldnt allow climbing to have three separate events. (even though it would seem it would take just as long to run!!)

[lukeyboy]

In defense of speed.

It's a head to head event not a time trial.

Like the FA cup. You draw the eventual winner in the 3rd round and lose when otherwise you would've made it through to the final. well tough luck.

Sometimes the best don't make it and a plucky minnow does. That's what makes it so great.

I think that logic works OK when it's a standalone event - e.g. the FA Cup, where it doesn't really make a difference if you get knocked out in the 1st round or the QFs, you still haven't won.

The problem is that for a combined format, these placings do matter because they have a big impact on your overall score, and as others have pointed out the scoring system can be very unfair - performance doesn't necessarily correlate with position, and a poor performance by one athlete can disproportionately benefit another random competitor.

[cheque]

the combined event is there because the IOC wouldnt allow climbing to have three separate events.

As I understand it (from a talk by the bloke who made the film Need for Speed from the 2018 Reel Rock) the IOC’s interest was purely in speed as they consider(ed) it to be the only discipline with any appeal to non-climbing spectators. The three-part format is a result of subsequent bargaining by the IFSC.