[Nemo]

"The best rock climbers aren't the always the best comp climbers. And vice versa.
Comp climbing has suddenly got a lot more serious and the days of being the best climber outdoors and being able to rock up at a World Cup and win that too are long gone." - Percy B

I can't go along with a lot of that post at all.  Not that it's wrong per se.  Just that it really doesn't need to be like this.

Thankfully, it isn't yet like that in lead comps.  Lead comps are still largely a stamina / power endurance test, so training for them is also completely applicable to training for steep stamina / power endurance routes outside.  And vice versa.
Hence, for the most part the best outdoor onsight climbers also still do extremely well or win in the lead comps.  (Obviously there will always be exceptions who can't handle the specific pressure in a comp, but for the most part the pressure someone puts on themselves to onsight a 9a isn't dissimilar to the pressure required for winning lead comps).

Bouldering comps are the problem.  More specifically, as I've said before, the setting of bouldering comps.
Because of the way the comps are set, training for bouldering outside, or actually bouldering outside is no longer of much use for training for bouldering comps.  And vice versa.  Hence boulderers are increasingly having to choose between focusing on comps or focusing on bouldering outside.

It really doesn't have to be like this.  And to me at least, it seems a great shame that the current setting style is forcing this choice.  The setting could easily change so that training for the comps would involve exactly the same kind of hard physical training on boards etc that people use to train for outdoor bouldering.
You could still have crimp problems, sloper problems, more technical problems etc.  Just ditch all the ridiculous coordination jumps and all the other nonsense which requires people to do specific training that is nothing to do with what people train to climb outside. 

Sure you'll still get some people who are great outside and rubbish at comps, but whilst there's still a large amount of crossover, the interest in comps will remain, people will be able to do both or at least have a few months a year bouldering outdoors without it harming their comp chances etc. 
If this doesn't happen, then a lot of the interest in bouldering comps will evaporate within the climbing world.  Even those climbers like Janja who primarily focus on comps clearly still have a lot of ambition in the outdoors.  The more comps diverge from real climbing, the more the majority of the best climbers will focus on the outdoors, if it's not possible to do both well. 

Comps have been good for outdoor standards.  Having famous outdoor climbers compete vastly increases the interest in comps.  They should and could continue to complement each other.  It's just down to deciding to set in a completely different way. 

[Teaboy]

Maybe a waste of money in terms of sustained comp results, but it sounds like it was formative in your climbing life which is significant on various levels and an inspiration to many. Many would consider it BMC money well spent, whatever the intended purpose. I think regardless of how narrow and targeted comp support becomes, it will keep producing collateral positives for individuals and the broader world of climbing, even if the system is trying its utmost to produce one result and one result alone.

This is a fair point. The people winning comps during my era have likewise gone on to be some of the most impressive climbers outdoors. Smitton routinely won when I was his age and in the women's field it was Twyford, Finlay and Powell (hardly shit names in terms of achievement).

Wouldn't these climbers have gone on to be the best of their generation outdoors regardless? If not it would, by definfintion, be some other climbers; why would that be a bad thing? An alternative outcome might be that as comps are seen as the non plus ultra of climbing the more talented climbers drop out once they stop being competitive. Again none of that matters but the argument that the BMC should pour money into something on the off chance that some of us will be inspired by those who receive the funding (but are not actually that arsed about comps?!) seems a bit like the trickle down economics arguments.

[crimpinainteasy]

The best rock climbers aren't the always the best comp climbers. And vice versa.
Comp climbing has suddenly got a lot more serious and the days of being the best climber outdoors and being able to rock up at a World Cup and win that too are long gone. Ondra proves this on a regular basis (not that fair - he does win some big comps, but on paper he should win all of them!)
Winning a qualification round where there is no pressure, and having the head to win a big final with the eyes of the TV viewing world on you are different games. It's much easier to climb when there's no pressure, but dealing with pressure is a huge part of comp climbing.
I think GB Climbing are backing dedicated comp athletes who are committed long term to comp climbing. They are looking to develop athletes for Olympic Games in 8 or 12 years time - not who's cranking now.
The progression to Olympic level sport has and will continue to change the sport of competition climbing out of all recognition from what we have known before, and many of these changes will not be pretty. They will almost all come about because of 'experts' who can smell money coming onto the sport.

In all fairness if guys like Tomoa, Kokoro, and Yoshiyuki actually spent more time bouldering outdoors they would easily be among the world's elite. Tomoa quite recently did a consensus v15 in 3 tries which is totally mind boggling. I'm sure if he actually dedicated 10+ sessions to a proj he could send the very hardest boulders in the world..

But Tomoa also cried when he couldn't do The Swarm, so perhaps anything that takes more than 4 minutes is too much for him to handle.

 

[Bonjoy]

Maybe a waste of money in terms of sustained comp results, but it sounds like it was formative in your climbing life which is significant on various levels and an inspiration to many. Many would consider it BMC money well spent, whatever the intended purpose. I think regardless of how narrow and targeted comp support becomes, it will keep producing collateral positives for individuals and the broader world of climbing, even if the system is trying its utmost to produce one result and one result alone.

This is a fair point. The people winning comps during my era have likewise gone on to be some of the most impressive climbers outdoors. Smitton routinely won when I was his age and in the women's field it was Twyford, Finlay and Powell (hardly shit names in terms of achievement).

... Again none of that matters but the argument that the BMC should pour money into something on the off chance that some of us will be inspired by those who receive the funding (but are not actually that arsed about comps?!) seems a bit like the trickle down economics arguments.

I wasn't making that argument.
Who the BMC should or shouldn't spend money on is beside the point I was making.

[Kingy]

Its worth notingh that Jakob didn't manage Sleepwalker after several days on it so maybe that busted the myth that the top comp climbers would hike the hardest outdoor testpieces.

[teestub]

Its worth notingh that Jakob didn't manage Sleepwalker after several days on it so maybe that busted the myth that the top comp climbers would hike the hardest outdoor testpieces.

His sport climbing CV isn’t bad though eh! Looks like he was struggling with reach on Sleepwalker as much as anything.

[Kingy]

Agreed, and an excess of dryness on the holds if there is any grain of truth in his April fool's insta post!

[User deactivated.]

Its worth notingh that Jakob didn't manage Sleepwalker after several days on it so maybe that busted the myth that the top comp climbers would hike the hardest outdoor testpieces.

His sport climbing CV isn’t bad though eh! Looks like he was struggling with reach on Sleepwalker as much as anything.

D. Woods with his similar (or less?) reach did that move in trainers on his Instagram 

[Paul B]

Wouldn't these climbers have gone on to be the best of their generation outdoors regardless? If not it would, by definfintion, be some other climbers; why would that be a bad thing?

It's a bit of a tangent but even back then there was a benefit to being on the Team in terms of training/structure that IMO drove performance.

[teestub]

D. Woods with his similar (or less?) reach did that move in trainers on his Instagram 

As well as being a total mutant Woods has a +10cm ape which may play into this

[Muenchener]

Its worth notingh that Jakob didn't manage Sleepwalker after several days on it so maybe that busted the myth that the top comp climbers would hike the hardest outdoor testpieces.

He isn't really a boulder specialist in comps though is he? 49 lead versus 10 boulder world cup podiums, sez wiki.

[yetix]

Its worth notingh that Jakob didn't manage Sleepwalker after several days on it so maybe that busted the myth that the top comp climbers would hike the hardest outdoor testpieces.

His sport climbing CV isn’t bad though eh! Looks like he was struggling with reach on Sleepwalker as much as anything.

D. Woods with his similar (or less?) reach did that move in trainers on his Instagram 

Nalle is taller than Woods but has less reach, hence he had to do it the other way. Schubet is more similarly built to Nalle I think. As said before Woods has a ape index that only bradders wouldn't envy

[Adam Lincoln]

Some facts into the mix.

Jakob is 5'9  Ape unknown
Woods is 5'7 +4 Ape
Nalle is 5'8 +0.5 Ape

[yetix]

https://jakob-schubert.com/en/blog-sleepwalker-redrocks.html

Schuberts comments on the bloc.

[Percy B]

There's so much to discuss here, I'm sorry I don't have time to do it all justice, but anyway....

I agree with Nemo's point on setting style, but the 'comp specific' coordination jumps, etc, are a symptom of the boulder comp format which in my opinion is fundamentally flawed and doesn't represent bouldering as the sport it is. The current boulder format is a bastardisation of lead which it evolved from, and I consider a major change in the way boulder comps work is long overdue. I have ideas on this and will try some of these out at some point over the next year or so.

Coordination jumps are a way for setters to force the best climbers to have multiple attempts on a showy crowd pleasing boulder - this means everybody is happy (crowd, judges, organisers, etc)... apart from the setters and the athletes who don't like this bullshit in general. It ruins your skin, and success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement. BUT, it creates a good split in the ranking, so helps reduce the risk of ties for the setters, and this is something which is helpful in reducing stress for setters! I really don't like comps where the setters are too reliant on this circus bollocks, but it is increasingly the way things are going. Younger setters with less experience seem to be more reliant on this style. Older setters like me a) can't do this because b) our limbs will come off if we try and stick some of the crazy dynos the youngsters set...! That's why setting teams increasingly try to mix youngsters with older grits for a better mix of styles.

Likewise - problems that display athletes inhuman 'board strength' are also boring to watch if you are not a bouldering geek (and 99.9% of the new viewing audience are not), but are also nearly impossible to set at the right level nowadays.

Good comp setting (so some people think) is about getting an amazing show for the audience, a good smattering of tops, boulders that create some magic performances from the climbers, and boulders that challenge all the athletes skills.

The new IFSC format with 2 zones is another step towards making scoring easier to understand while missing the point of the bouldering. 2 zones means 2 scoring points on each climb, making it even more like lead.... Bouldering is about getting to the top - not dropping off when you've scored enough points.

[Paul B]

Coordination jumps are a way for setters to force the best climbers to have multiple attempts on a showy crowd pleasing boulder - this means everybody is happy (crowd, judges, organisers, etc)... apart from the setters and the athletes who don't like this bullshit in general. It ruins your skin, and success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement. BUT...

I think things have gone totally awry if the content of the competitions changes to please a fledgling audience*? It was a while ago now but I remember when everything went triangular and the argument put forward then was "indoor bouldering doesn't accurately replicate outdoor bouldering thus lets go nuts" (significant paraphrasing). To me (a not quite so young climber who is generally pretty average and who any sensible wall owner would ban if they saw me approach a modern comp problem unless they had a penchant for snuff films), it seems like an extension of this. I find it really disengaging.

*I do understand that setters have a tough time splitting a world class crowd reliably and that the difference between watching people unable to pull on and piss up everything is very slight.

[teestub]

*I do understand that setters have a tough time splitting a world class crowd reliably and that the difference between watching people unable to pull on and piss up everything is very slight.

See problem 3 in the Olympic men’s final for an example of this!

[crimpinainteasy]

There's so much to discuss here, I'm sorry I don't have time to do it all justice, but anyway....

I agree with Nemo's point on setting style, but the 'comp specific' coordination jumps, etc, are a symptom of the boulder comp format which in my opinion is fundamentally flawed and doesn't represent bouldering as the sport it is. The current boulder format is a bastardisation of lead which it evolved from, and I consider a major change in the way boulder comps work is long overdue. I have ideas on this and will try some of these out at some point over the next year or so.

Coordination jumps are a way for setters to force the best climbers to have multiple attempts on a showy crowd pleasing boulder - this means everybody is happy (crowd, judges, organisers, etc)... apart from the setters and the athletes who don't like this bullshit in general. It ruins your skin, and success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement. BUT, it creates a good split in the ranking, so helps reduce the risk of ties for the setters, and this is something which is helpful in reducing stress for setters! I really don't like comps where the setters are too reliant on this circus bollocks, but it is increasingly the way things are going. Younger setters with less experience seem to be more reliant on this style. Older setters like me a) can't do this because b) our limbs will come off if we try and stick some of the crazy dynos the youngsters set...! That's why setting teams increasingly try to mix youngsters with older grits for a better mix of styles.

Likewise - problems that display athletes inhuman 'board strength' are also boring to watch if you are not a bouldering geek (and 99.9% of the new viewing audience are not), but are also nearly impossible to set at the right level nowadays.

Good comp setting (so some people think) is about getting an amazing show for the audience, a good smattering of tops, boulders that create some magic performances from the climbers, and boulders that challenge all the athletes skills.

The new IFSC format with 2 zones is another step towards making scoring easier to understand while missing the point of the bouldering. 2 zones means 2 scoring points on each climb, making it even more like lead.... Bouldering is about getting to the top - not dropping off when you've scored enough points.

They should bring back 5 minutes+ for bouldering.

[Muenchener]

Likewise - problems that display athletes inhuman 'board strength' are also boring to watch if you are not a bouldering geek (and 99.9% of the new viewing audience are not), but are also nearly impossible to set at the right level nowadays.

Yeah, that must be very hard to gauge. I don't remember which competition, but a year or two back there was a women's problem in a world cup round that looked like a fairly basic ladder of tiny crimps. "Great", I thought, "finally some real climbing". Until everybody cruised it.

[Steve Crowe]

“ They should bring back 5 minutes+ for bouldering.”

I agree, and revert to… Once you’ve started you can finish.

[spidermonkey09]

success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement.

Good post. This bit stuck out for me; this is just bouldering, or indeed climbing in general though surely? I can do without the jumps and stuff but I can see why they're useful for setters. I think its too simplistic to call for setting that reflects outdoor climbing as they would all just mince those problems, as Muenchener said.

[Dexter]

I think indoors has so much more possibility for "interesting" moves that aren't co-ordination jumps. 360 campus moves, inverted feet stuff etc. that both newbies and oldies can appreciate. One thing I also find odd is that comps and increasingly indoor walls in general focus so much on big volume holds. I get that they allow changes in angle etc. but would it not be more impressive to see someone getting up an apparently blank piece of wall?

[edshakey]

Maybe if we want to replicate outdoors a bit more, the problems should be ultimately more 'basic' but with a bunch of decoy holds amongst the good ones, all just as chalked as each other. I can imagine that, with a new hold set that competitors haven't seen before, this would cause a fair few attempts for some people, while some might get up quickly. A more meaningful separation than parkour?

[remus]

I think indoors has so much more possibility for "interesting" moves that aren't co-ordination jumps. 360 campus moves, inverted feet stuff etc. that both newbies and oldies can appreciate. One thing I also find odd is that comps and increasingly indoor walls in general focus so much on big volume holds. I get that they allow changes in angle etc. but would it not be more impressive to see someone getting up an apparently blank piece of wall?

Just my experience as a punter in the indoor walls, but I find big volumes can make for more interesting problems because there's often lots of different ways to climb them.

[remus]

Maybe if we want to replicate outdoors a bit more, the problems should be ultimately more 'basic' but with a bunch of decoy holds amongst the good ones, all just as chalked as each other. I can imagine that, with a new hold set that competitors haven't seen before, this would cause a fair few attempts for some people, while some might get up quickly. A more meaningful separation than parkour?

...and pretty shit for competitors. Imagine losing the olympic gold medal because there was 2 holds that looked identical and you got unlucky and threw for the wrong one. I think this is kinda different to outdoors, where reading the rock is a skill you can develop, whereas trying to guess which holds are decoys feels a lot more pot luck.