[Bradders]

Jain Kim, in both 2007 + 2011.

A not-massively-thorough manual trawl yielded that, plus the others mentioned. There may be a couple more, but it's a fairly elite group regardless!

On Jain Kim, her win deserves a mention. Pretty incredible longevity, she's 34 years old and had a baby in 2021.

[jwi]

Liv Sansoz in 2000, Sandrine Levet in 2001 and 2003 as well. David Lama in 2006 and 2008. Tomás Mrázek in 2007. Adam Ondra in 2010 and 2019. Kim Jain in 2011 as mentioned. Jacob Schubert in 2012 and 2013. Mina Markovic in 2012. Janja Ganbret in 2017 (multiple gold in both disciplines), 2018 (likewise), 2019 (only one in lead),  2021 (multiple), 2022 and 2023. Sean Bailey in 2021. Colin Duffey in 2022. Toby Roberts 2023.

Suffice to say that it is a fairly short list of climbers.

Unless there is an error here: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupe_du_monde_d%27escalade_de_2007
Kim Jain did not take gold in lead or boulder in 2007

[edshakey]

Unless there is an error here: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupe_du_monde_d%27escalade_de_2007
Kim Jain did not take gold in lead or boulder in 2007

Nope, good spot, I misread her Asian Champs double as world cup wins, when scrolling the ifsc results site 

[mde]

What do you think about the scoring for the women? Nonoha Kume and Hélène Janicot both tried a dynamic paddle sequence from hold 37 (to 38 and 39, they controlled neither of the holds but touched both). They fell and were initially given 37+ which is what seems logical to me. Later the score was upped to 38+, which apparently is what it should be according to the most recent IFSC rules, as they had "used" hold 38 to gain 39 (which I don't think is correct, it was an unsuccessful throw to the two holds).

Jessy Pilz went for a static solution there (which is also what Jain Kim did who successfully climbed that section). It's debatable whether she had hold 38 under control (tough call). 38 was first given, then later corrected to 37+. If the other two athletes had scored 37+ (as they should in my opinion), this would have meant 2nd place for Jessy (due to countback). But no, it's a fourth... absolutely bonkers imo.

[abarro81]

What do you think about the scoring for the women? ... absolutely bonkers imo.

I fully agree. Things like that make comp climbing much more farcical than it needs to be

[abarro81]

For some more farce, if this from a comment on 8a is right then Chaehyun shouldn't have been called off at all
The relevant rule for this case is found under 7.17, and states: 2) where the route is attempted without the rope secured through an anchor at the top of the route, must clip the Protection Points in sequence, provided that: a) the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time; and b) the competitor must correct any “Z-Clip” and to do so may un-clip and re-clip any of the Protection Points involved, provided that after correction all Protection Points must be clipped. What she did wrong here was clip one draw out of order, however 2a) clearly states that: "the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time". As she did exactly that (unclipped the high one and reclipped both in sequence) she should have been well within the rules and allowed to continue.
So the whole women's final is a bit of a farce...

[jwi]

The second comp in a row Chaehyun has been wronged by the judges

[Muenchener]

For some more farce, if this from a comment on 8a is right then Chaehyun shouldn't have been called off at all

That comment isn't right though, neither of those rules refers to skipping clips. As soon as you start tolerating skipping clips in a high pressure, high stakes competitive situation on fifteen metre walls, you'll start seeing broken legs or worse.

[abarro81]

I can't see where the comment is wrong. Can you explain?

https://cdn.ifsc-climbing.org/images/Website/2023_IFSC_Rules_112.pdf

7.17 A 2 does clearly refer to clips. the relevant wording would be

During their attempt [...] competitors [...] must clip the Protection Points in sequence, provided that [...] the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time

She did not skip, in that at the point she was called off she had clipped all the draws, in sequence, she just had to unclip the top one to reclip the bottom one in order for it to be in sequence (which the wording above appears to explicitly allow). (Do not believe the commentary if that's what you're meaning - it was clear on the footage that she clipped the sling, then unclipped, clipped the draw below, then reclipped the sling. Nothing was skipped.)

[galpinos]

During their attempt [...] competitors [...] must clip the Protection Points in sequence, provided that [...] the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time

Isn't the pertinent point here that she did not clip them in sequence? Any clause after that is negated is the premise of the initial statement is not met?

(It is poorly worded and open to interpretation imho. I can see how it could be read as you did so who knows!)

[Muenchener]

During their attempt [...] competitors [...] must clip the Protection Points in sequence

... which she did not do. At the point at which she clipped the orange sling, she had skipped.

[sirlockoff]

from the pdf:

Legitimate Position means, for the purposes of Lead competitions, that a competitor in the
course of their attempt on a route:
a) has not used any Illegal Aid;
b) has clipped each preceding Protection Point in sequence; and

and it also says:

shall order that a competitor’s attempt be terminated if:

B) may order that a competitor’s attempt be terminated if:
1) the competitor is no longer in a Legitimate Position; or


so based on that, as soon as the clips were out of sequence, she was in non legitimate position, and her attempt was done.



great work by Toby, smashed it, both lead and bouldering, the hero we needed   

[SA Chris]

During their attempt [...] competitors [...] must clip the Protection Points in sequence, provided that [...] the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time

Isn't the pertinent point here that she did not clip them in sequence? Any clause after that is negated is the premise of the initial statement is not met?

No, the "provided that" is still part of the rule, you have to read it in its entirety, surely.

[abarro81]

During their attempt [...] competitors [...] must clip the Protection Points in sequence, provided that [...] the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time

Isn't the pertinent point here that she did not clip them in sequence? Any clause after that is negated is the premise of the initial statement is not met?

No, the "provided that" is still part of the rule, you have to read it in its entirety, surely.

I am with Chris here - I don't think you can ignore the second part. The use of "provided that" if very weird though, maybe lawyers like it?

Bear in mind that once she unclipped the top clip (which is totally legit) and then reclipped (bottom first, then top) she had clipped them all in sequence. I can't see why you would have "the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time" in that rule for any reason other than to ensure that doing what she did was within the rules. How else would it be relevant? If it has other relevance maybe that would change how I read it, but unless someone can think of that I don't find any other reading convincing...

[robertostallioni]

fixing a back-clip?
although I'm not sure they really give much of a shit about back-clips.

[abarro81]

fixing a back-clip?
although I'm not sure they really give much of a shit about back-clips.

What's this is in reference to?

from the pdf:
Legitimate Position means, for the purposes of Lead competitions, that a competitor in the
course of their attempt on a route:
a) has not used any Illegal Aid;
b) has clipped each preceding Protection Point in sequence; and

Ah, maybe that does it... weird to have that bit about being able to unclip the preceding draw in then though, to my mind at least. Shitty rule in that case, with no justification that I can think of. I can't imagine any climber thinking that she should have been stopped. Stuff like this just makes comp climbing so much more lame than it needs to be.

[SA Chris]

So it's "a farce" and "more lame than it needs to be" both in one day. Tough times.

Stoked for Toby though.

[robertostallioni]

Ah sorry. It was the only reason I could think of for unclipping and re-clipping.

 I can't see why you would have "the competitor may un-clip and re-clip the last clipped Protection Point at any time" in that rule for any reason other than to ensure that doing what she did was within the rules. .....

[sirlockoff]

re-clipping is pretty useful when you are in a situation where you have clipped in such way that the rope runs behind your leg (resulting you hitting your head to the wall if you fall), and you wan't to fix that.

in most cases you can just move your leg, but if there is a move, where all the tension is in the legs (for example heelhook), and the next move is quite dynamic, it is far easier to re-clip than try to somehow move your legs,

also Z-clipping and fixing that is valid by re-clipping, I saw Sean do it in IFSC comp.

[cowboyhat]

Who was the last Brit to win a lead world Cup?

Having not really followed it Vickers is the first name that jumps to mind but he may not have. I can picture another bloke but can't remember is name, a bit later. Possibly naughties.

[crimpinainteasy]

Careful what you wish for, he's much, much better than the idiot they had doing the Olympics commentary.

Get Mike langley in

If Mike Langley is the guy who commentated on the BBCs then god no.

[thunderbeest]

fixing a back-clip?
although I'm not sure they really give much of a shit about back-clips.

What's this is in reference to?

from the pdf:
Legitimate Position means, for the purposes of Lead competitions, that a competitor in the
course of their attempt on a route:
a) has not used any Illegal Aid;
b) has clipped each preceding Protection Point in sequence; and

Ah, maybe that does it... weird to have that bit about being able to unclip the preceding draw in then though, to my mind at least. Shitty rule in that case, with no justification that I can think of. I can't imagine any climber thinking that she should have been stopped. Stuff like this just makes comp climbing so much more lame than it needs to be.

Someone mentioned the Z clips,which I suppose is the only reason?

[Wil]

Re: "provided that"

My reading is that this is a badly written rule. The obvious objective is that climbers have to clip in sequence, to avoid a potential groundfall, and IMO totally fair for an instant disqualification if that's not the case. I think the provided that is intended to convey "provided that that they have clipped in sequence..." Really should be clearer though, was the original rule written in French and lost in translation?

[jwi]

Who was the last Brit to win a lead world Cup?

Having not really followed it Vickers is the first name that jumps to mind but he may not have. I can picture another bloke but can't remember is name, a bit later. Possibly naughties.

Ian Vickers never won a World Cup. Simon Nadin 1990 is the last.

[edshakey]

7/8 male finalists in Briancon are Japanese  surely that's some sort of record?