UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Nemo on April 04, 2022, 10:43:13 pm
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
:lol:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Agreed, and an excess of dryness on the holds if there is any grain of truth in his April fool's insta post!
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Some facts into the mix.
Jakob is 5'9 Ape unknown
Woods is 5'7 +4 Ape
Nalle is 5'8 +0.5 Ape
-
https://jakob-schubert.com/en/blog-sleepwalker-redrocks.html
Schuberts comments on the bloc.
-
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.
-
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.
-
*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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
“ They should bring back 5 minutes+ for bouldering.”
I agree, and revert to… Once you’ve started you can finish.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't know, sounds exactly like being pumped and making the wrong call when eyeballing two options at the chains! Although I'm thinking of route climbing here, might not work so well in bouldering, and in route climbing it could become a nightmare for scoring (you climb the whole sequence differently to how it was intended and get 0 points cos you used all the wrong holds :lol:)
-
All this discussion about the bouldering format says to me is what everybody already knows to be true - bouldering is a shit spectator sport for general public consumption, even though we enjoy watching it. Lead climbing is quite a good spectator sport (and so unfortunately is speed).
I predict bouldering won't be in the olympics by 2028, or if it is then it will end up being the least-watched of the three events. Saying that there are plenty of other sports in the olympics that make poor events for a general TV audience - dressage, race walking etc.
-
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.
Consider a comp boulder problem that resembles Jade in Colorado. Ondra flashed it, Aidan did it in a couple of goes, others have taken longer I think. Seems like a perfect difficulty to split a field of competitors.
And to others who have mentioned entertaining spectators, do any non climbers really sit and watch world cups with any regularity? Im completely obsessed with climbing but i still find competitions a boring watch, usually. If we just need to entertain people at the Olympics once every 4 years, why change our sport to satisfy others? Do other sports do this?
-
Hmm I defo get where you're coming from Remus, think I was imagining it in the way that Barrows described but maybe having Olympics medals decided by that method is not quite the same as just falling off at the crag and then having another go in 15 mins anyway.
If it's reading rock you want though, maybe we need to merge the Artificial Boulders thread in here, get the climbers on some real rock blasted out of a Llyn peninsula quarry specially for the comp. I imagine the IFSC budget would cover it now they've got Eurosport on their side ;D
-
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.
Consider a comp boulder problem that resembles Jade in Colorado. Ondra flashed it, Aidan did it in a couple of goes, others have taken longer I think. Seems like a perfect difficulty to split a field of competitors.
And to others who have mentioned entertaining spectators, do any non climbers really sit and watch world cups with any regularity? Im completely obsessed with climbing but i still find competitions a boring watch, usually. If we just need to entertain people at the Olympics once every 4 years, why change our sport to satisfy others? Do other sports do this?
Maybe part of the problem is that the setters just aren't at the same strength level to make an equivalent. Not to discredit them but they're just not quite on this level so it's very hard to differentiate these marginal differences. Do we need some outdoor wads as professional testers for outdoor style problems.
-
success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement.
I mean this is exactly what you want to test isn't it? We can delete 'contrived' because the whole point of route-setting is to contrive movement, it is all contrived.
As much as many people (on the evidence of this thread) would like bouldering to basically be a test of finger strength and dieting on a sequence anyone could read, the reality is it about solving problems. Having to decipher and deliver a complex body movement is exactly what the sub-sport is about.
-
Maybe part of the problem is that the setters just aren't at the same strength level to make an equivalent. Not to discredit them but they're just not quite on this level so it's very hard to differentiate these marginal differences. Do we need some outdoor wads as professional testers for outdoor style problems.
It’s not just the overall level of difficulty either, the setters have to moderate the difficulty to account for the competitors having already done the qualis and semis (and potentially more if it’s a combined event), the weather conditions and any change in that since they set the problems, and who is turning up for that particular competition.
I don’t envy them the job at all, but when it does go right it’s fucking awesome. Won’t forget Kokoro smashing that pinch boulder and making everyone else look pedestrian for a while (26:30 here)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8i_FOk955c0
-
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?
I'm all for making boulder comps more realistic, but I'd start with the landings. Get rid of the indoor crash matting and replace with talus, wet sloping grass, font style sand pits, tick infested heathland, etc. Competitors to provide their own bouldering pads, limited to what they can carry from their accommodation.
-
If we just need to entertain people at the Olympics once every 4 years, why change our sport to satisfy others? Do other sports do this?
Yes, one I know a bit about is judo. The competition rules for judo now are extremely different to those I grew up with and trained as a kid.
The sport judo governing body took out leg-grab techniques for fear that it was perceived by spectators as too similar to freestyle and greco-roman wrestling, and therefore at risk of elimination as a separate Olympic sport. They changed grip-fighting and ground-fighting rules to make it look more flashy to spectators.
Controversial as some of the rules, particularly with leg-grabs being lost, make it a less effective martial art for self-defence in a lot of judokas opinions.
The counter argument is that the techniques are still in the canon and you can still train them if you want. But with most clubs being competition-focused and leg-grabs getting you an immediate disqualification, the amount of training you do on these techniques is naturally minimized.
The same could become true of comp bouldering I suppose, if the competitor has to spend most of their time training coordination over fingers they will be less effective outside.
-
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.
Consider a comp boulder problem that resembles Jade in Colorado. Ondra flashed it, Aidan did it in a couple of goes, others have taken longer I think. Seems like a perfect difficulty to split a field of competitors.
And to others who have mentioned entertaining spectators, do any non climbers really sit and watch world cups with any regularity? Im completely obsessed with climbing but i still find competitions a boring watch, usually. If we just need to entertain people at the Olympics once every 4 years, why change our sport to satisfy others? Do other sports do this?
Maybe part of the problem is that the setters just aren't at the same strength level to make an equivalent. Not to discredit them but they're just not quite on this level so it's very hard to differentiate these marginal differences. Do we need some outdoor wads as professional testers for outdoor style problems.
I think this is a big part of the issue. Not too many world class setters who are still climbing at the elite level IE v15+ to set and v14 and harder problems.
-
I think Pete's point is very true. With the current comp format, bouldering will slowly disappear from the comp world. Too much time has been taken trying to fix a fundamentally flawed format, and the way these problems are being 'fixed' is not doing the sport any good - scoring, number of problems, time allowance, etc. All the current fixes are about trying to adapt boulder comps to make them work on TV, but the reality is it just doesn't really work. We' seem to be trying to polish a turd... :shit:
I don't know what the answer is, but I am motivated to try some new ideas, as I've spent a large proportion of my professional life setting boulder comps, and the thought of our new Olympic status bringing about the demise of something I think has genuine appeal and value doesn't feel right.
Johnny is right as he always is, that all climbing movement is contrived. I was trying to say that a lot of dynamic coordination movement in modern comps bears no relation to what happens in bouldering in the real world. It's a new style of movement that is strictly the domain of comp athletes, and was created by setters to achieve their goals (to create a clear ranking) in an easy and viewer friendly manner.
Before anybody chimes in with the "Johnny Dawes has been doing dynamic coordination for years" comment, no he hasn't. He did used to bounce about a lot, the diminutive little tinker, but Johnny has never done any coordination jumps like current World Cup athletes do at the drop of a hat. The level difficulty is absolutely other worldly compared to what Johnny could do back in the day. Dawes might have been a visionary, but the stuff you see in modern comps is way more difficult. He'd still kick all their arses at doing dangerous stuff one handed though (probably...)
The change in style of comp boulders from traditional climbing style to a more parcour style has been a worry for the IFSC - they don't want the sport to evolve until it's more like other sports than bouldering. Now all the athletes have the new dynamic coordination style dialled in, it becomes a less effective tool for the setters and they will probably stop using it and find something else. I've always found a hand jam, or a spot of chimneying sorts the wheat from the chaff......
-
Just saw the other point - there are a lot of IFSC setters who climb V14, or 9a routes. Not me obviously - I'm strictly VS (I bring experience to setting teams, and stupidity). All 3 IFSC setters who I worked in Tokyo with have climbed minimum Font 8b regularly. My Japanese helper had climbed V15.
-
If we just need to entertain people at the Olympics once every 4 years, why change our sport to satisfy others? Do other sports do this?
Yes, one I know a bit about is judo. The competition rules for judo now are extremely different to those I grew up with and trained as a kid.
The sport judo governing body took out leg-grab techniques for fear that it was perceived by spectators as too similar to freestyle and greco-roman wrestling, and therefore at risk of elimination as a separate Olympic sport. They changed grip-fighting and ground-fighting rules to make it look more flashy to spectators.
Well they failed then. I watched some olympic judo, and while I assume there was a lot going on, most of it was invisible to the ignorant (me). It was two blokes tagging each other carefully for a while, then they would hug, then one of them might fall over.
Don't get me wrong, I know how impressive these guys are - but if you don't understand the nuances it's about as exciting to watch as Ai Mori shaking out on a microscopic nubbin.
-
"I consider a major change in the way boulder comps work is long overdue. - Percy B"
Good to hear there's others who'd like to see changes. And obviously I get that getting a good show, splitting the pack etc is challenging regardless of how problems are set.
"success is largely down to how quickly you can learn a contrived movement - Percy B"
Indeed. A lot of the jumping around problems seem like success doesn't have a lot to do with ability. It often seems very random who fits the problem best / often very height dependent jumping into toe hooks, who happens to have practiced that exact type of jump previously etc.
"I was trying to say that a lot of dynamic coordination movement in modern comps bears no relation to what happens in bouldering in the real world. It's a new style of movement that is strictly the domain of comp athletes - Percy B"
Exactly.
"I think its too simplistic to call for setting that reflects outdoor climbing as they would all just mince those problems - spidermonkey09"
Well, make them harder then.
"Consider a comp boulder problem that resembles Jade in Colorado. Ondra flashed it, Aidan did it in a couple of goes, others have taken longer I think. Seems like a perfect difficulty to split a field of competitors. - LiamHutch89"
Exactly.
"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) - Percy B"
I would question this. From an admittedly fairly small sample of people I know who watch bouldering comps who aren't really climbers (there's a surprising number at my work though), they are often most impressed by people climbing really steep stuff, roofs, pulling on obviously tiny holds etc. Whereas a lot of the problems jumping around on big sloping volumes they often aren't as impressed by, as to the uninitiated a lot of the volumes often just look like jugs.
Random aside, but one thing that invariably creates amazement in non climbers is people pulling on tiny pockets. I get that presumably this kind of thing is largely not set to avoid injury, but perhaps even some dead easy moves on monos would create a better show than a lot more jumping around. Generally though I'd be arguing for - make it steeper, make the holds smaller, still keen to see lots of technical stuff though, just technical in ways that reflect hard outdoor bouldering.
"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? - Dexter"
Agreed.
"but are also nearly impossible to set at the right level nowadays. - Percy B"
Again, I'm skeptical. It might require more setters who are capable of and used to regularly climbing and setting 8B+ problems. But even on a totally basic crimp ladder, I can't imagine it would take too much time to figure out what the best in the world can handle, and then take it down a few notches at the start of the problem, and build up the difficulty.
"Do we need some outdoor wads as professional testers for outdoor style problems."
Yes, definitely.
"Maybe part of the problem is that the setters just aren't at the same strength level to make an equivalent. - Dexter"
I suspect this is part of the problem. It may be that the setters have climbed 8B+, but have they climbed 8B+ regularly and recently in lots of different styles. I think if you regularly got Dave Graham or someone of that level and experience outdoors to turn up and help set a comp, or at least be there to tweak something that professional setters have set, the outcome might be rather different. Admittedly it might cost a fair bit to get them there. (And of course it may be any one particular good outdoor climber is terrible at setting, but there will certainly be some that aren't).
"As much as many people (on the evidence of this thread) would like bouldering to basically be a test of finger strength and dieting on a sequence anyone could read - JB"
I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. There's lots of hard outdoor bouldering that is very complex and technical. Not against complex and technical problems in comps in the slightest. I'm against setting that focuses on things that bouderers never do outdoors, and in particular stuff that requires a lot of specific training that has no relevance to anyone who boulders outdoors.
"do any non climbers really sit and watch world cups with any regularity? - LiamHutch89"
If various random people at my work are anything to go by, then yes, definitely. There's a guy in my 6 man team who knows every comp result back to the 90s in both lead and bouldering and who's climbing experience is to have gone to a wall a couple of times with some mates.
"trying to adapt boulder comps to make them work on TV, but the reality is it just doesn't really work."
Again, not sure I agree. I think it works fine on TV - certainly as well or better than plenty of other sports.
"I've always found a hand jam, or a spot of chimneying sorts the wheat from the chaff"
Again, this is the stuff I despise in comps. It's just a test of who's had a tiny bit of experience of doing some trad climbing, vs actually testing who is the best boulderer.
It might be funny etc watching 8C boulderers fail on somthing you'd find on an 5.9 in Yosemite, but it turns boulder comps into a joke.
Fine for entertaining fun local comps. Not so fine for world cups.
"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. - Percy B"
Perhaps along with the setting style this is one of the fundamental problems.
I guess I think exactly the opposite.
ie: IMO, it needs to go a lot further. Make every hold a point, with an additional x points for a top.
Setters are always going to have a completely impossible task if they are aiming for getting one person on top of the boulder and splitting everyone else with one or two zones.
To me at least, everyone just needs to accept that this is unrealistic, set problems that get progressively harder, with a point gained for every hold gained, then I suspect a lot of the problems the setters have been having would go away.
I don't think that is "missing the point of bouldering" at all. What I care way more about is the moves they are climbing. And as long as the pack is split successfully, I don't think most people are going to be upset that there isn't always the satisfaction of seeing a top. What's much less satisfying is where there's one silly trick move that they entire pack fails on.
-
Well I think that might be a first for UK climbing, someone’s PR person responding on their behalf!
Although Jerry probably got there first in the ‘90’s 😄
Jerry is such a total legend, he almost certainly wouldn't have needed any additional PR or Marketing support!
Jerry was managed by a guy called Andy Brown, as was John Dunne I think
-
I couldn't disagree more on cracks (I hate them, but there's no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be in comps - they're hardly a party trick!). And I find it funny watching people tell setters that it's easy to set things that are just the right difficulty in any style. But I do agree that having a more points-based system might solve some of the issues and allow bouldering comps to resemble outdoor bouldering a bit more, which would be cool.
-
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,
Many moons ago me and Chris Plant got someone to make us a hold that looked like a fish. We put it on one of the routes at a BICC (Rockface in Birmingham). A couple of people asked us what it was there for, the answer being (or course), "oh that's just a red herring"
-
"I find it funny watching people tell setters that it's easy to set things that are just the right difficulty in any style - abarro81"
Don't think anyone is saying that for a second. I certainly wasn't.
Getting the right level of difficulty is clearly desperate.
I just don't think that it's any more desperate to set problems of the correct level in a more outdoor style.
As you say though, I think a more points based system would certainly help.
But it's always going to be difficult to work out how knackered people are likely to be in the finals, to try to take into account the difference in temperature / conditions between when you're setting vs the actual comp etc etc etc.
Just think if people like Percy are considering changes in formats for the future, it's worth people chipping in with thoughts on how to improve things.
-
It might sound weird but I think much of what's being talked about could be achieved by setting more realistic styles of problem and then having comp walls that can be adjusted for angle mid-competition with hydraulics. Adjusting a wall angle mid-comp to make the same problem steeper is quite a visual thing an audience can understand and changes a problem a lot by one quick adjustment. Something a bit too easy in the qualification round? Make it 10 degrees steeper.
*yes it's unrealistic to change the angle, unless you boulder a lot on a glacier.
-
On the topic of angle; is part of the problem that the competition walls just aren't that steep? If I think of the most difficult boulder problems in the world, they're almost universally steeply overhanging, whereas it at least looks as though the comp walls rarely go beyond c. 40'?
I had the same thought as Liam with this; surely the problems need to be harder? 8B regularly gets flashed nowadays, so accounting for the build up of fatigue etc. perhaps the problems should be minimum 8A at World Cup level. A final of 4x 8B boulders would surely separate the field out regardless of their style.
-
Not when everyone's tired and no-one gets any tops... Or you slightly misjudge and it's a final of 4x8B+
I can see why it's a lot easier to use problems that are easy to fall off rather than problems that are hard per se to separate a field.. I'm slightly surprised that some seems to think otherwise
-
Many moons ago me and Chris Plant got someone to make us a hold that looked like a fish. We put it on one of the routes at a BICC (Rockface in Birmingham). A couple of people asked us what it was there for, the answer being (or course), "oh that's just a red herring"
I thought it was so no one could knock Jerry off his perch.
-
Many moons ago me and Chris Plant got someone to make us a hold that looked like a fish. We put it on one of the routes at a BICC (Rockface in Birmingham). A couple of people asked us what it was there for, the answer being (or course), "oh that's just a red herring"
I thought it was so no one could knock Jerry off his perch.
Making people flounder on the route.
-
That put them in their plaice
-
Glad it was a herring, you wouldn't want a dab
-
Whereas a lot of the problems jumping around on big sloping volumes they often aren't as impressed by, as to the uninitiated a lot of the volumes often just look like jugs.
I have a hard agree on this, talking to non climbers like my mum, big blobs basically look like big blobs, and may as well be jugs. It's nontrivial for the non-climbing layperson to understand the general concept of slopiness and how that affects body position etc etc, but zooming in on filthy little edges or having some big jumps do convey difficulty much better.
Personally I think lead should go back to small dirty crimps and have the camera man zoom in close and instruct the commentators to go "wow! Nasty! Look at that super small edge!". Some real nasty classic resistance shit.
Bouldering is honestly a bit of a mess, I love it but it's objectively not a great show on average, maybe some moments but it's 3+ hours long these days! I'd love to see Percy trying something new.
-
+1 on non climbers being most impressed by steep stuff. I've noticed people are often more impressed by campussing on jugs through a roof than they are by climbing a heinous sloper/pinch problem on a more vertical angle.
-
Are we intent on pushing boulder comps toward impressing a general audience ? If so then we might as well just set up a ninja warrior course and come up with our own title.
Gravity heroes or Vertical soldiers maybe ?
Even better we could have regular members of the public compete against professional climbers clad in lycra with amusing names like rhino, wolf or jet.
-
Will Bosi takes up snorting meth in an alleyway
-
Are we intent on pushing boulder comps toward impressing a general audience ? If so then we might as well just set up a ninja warrior course and come up with our own title.
Gravity heroes or Vertical soldiers maybe ?
Even better we could have regular members of the public compete against professional climbers clad in lycra with amusing names like rhino, wolf or jet.
If 'gravity heroes' was in the olympics then I'd definitely set aside an hour or two to watch it. They put snowboard-cross in so why not some other mindless brain-candy :popcorn:
-
Are we intent on pushing boulder comps toward impressing a general audience ?
No doubt the organisers are interested in that at least to some extent.
The point though was that impressing a general audience is often one of the reasons given for a lot of the coordination jumping volumey blobby stuff and not setting in a more outdoor style.
And I simply don't think that's a valid argument as that stuff often doesn't actually impress those people a fat lot.
Whereas pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall does.
-
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though. You might as well just have the world dead hanging championships.
-
I dunno how much I'd want to compromise the quality of the comp for the benefit of nonclimbing viewers. Why should we really care what they think about it? Is climbing any better for it? I dunno the answers but we all know that speed climbing is daft but it was absolutely the one the public liked the most, that doesn't make it any less daft though
-
If we are doing rule changes then humbly throwing this in the mixer to save the soul of competition bouldering.
https://www.hotterthanchicken.com/
-
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though. You might as well just have the world dead hanging championships.
This. Plus it would be incredibly tedious to watch.
-
Slightly off topic, but I thought a good insight into route setting was in a Climbing Gold podcast (Honnold's largely anodyne outlet - lots of adverts for "plant based eggs", "athletic greens" and...errr... whiskey!).
https://www.climbinggold.com/episodes/risk-intensity-complexity
The TLDR version is the most interesting part is when Adam Pustelnik, an IFSC route setter, outlines that he designs problems on 3 dimensions:
Risk - tenuousness, scary moves etc;
Intensity - strength and power - the purely physical aspect;
Complexity - co-ordination, movement madness!
He tries to design sets of problems so that every climber has one they love, one they hate, and one in-between, The winner is the person who can best cope with their weakness.
-
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though.
I wasn't suggesting that every problem was set like that. As I said previously, I'm all in favour of all types of outdoor bouldering being represented in comps from slopers to compression to crimps to pockets to complex technical stuff etc etc etc. Above I was simply pointing out that if you are trying to prioritise impressing non climbers, then jumping around on blobs isn't IMO the way of going about it.
-
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though. You might as well just have the world dead hanging championships.
Presumably not hard to add in significant skill component to 'pulling really hard up crimps on a wall' though? (without resorting to conditions or skin dependent holds) Thinking tricky and mandatory accurate deadpoints to blocked holds/slots, awkward/unusual/tension-ey/directional feet and body positions, holds mounted on small, slick volumes that force the movement out of just the 2D plane.
One type of problem I don't see that often but personally find very entertaining is the relatively long, very physical type that's particularly hard to flash for whatever reason. It's great when the climber's had a good first go, got quite far and, having being wrestling hard on the problem for ~1min, they're visibly absolutely bolloxed. you know and they know, ~90sec winded rest and they have to go again, ooof. May be totally wrong but I'd have guessed it's relatively easy to get separation on that type of problem too.
Some interesting thoughts, thread's probably due a split....
-
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though. You might as well just have the world dead hanging championships.
There should be a competition for who can do the most one armers on an 8mm edge.
-
One type of problem I don't see that often but personally find very entertaining is the relatively long, very physical type that's particularly hard to flash for whatever reason. It's great when the climber's had a good first go, got quite far and, having being wrestling hard on the problem for ~1min, they're visibly absolutely bolloxed. you know and they know, ~90sec winded rest and they have to go again, ooof. May be totally wrong but I'd have guessed it's relatively easy to get separation on that type of problem too.
If everyone only gets 2 goes though, it's not going to yield much splitting at all! Either T1Z1, T2Z1, Z1 or Z2. Assuming some people have a couple more go's, there's a little more to it, but it's nowhere near the same as a triple dyno that Tomoa flashes and someone else takes 10+ go's just to stick the zone. Despite how entertaining they are to watch as a proper battle, I'd have thought long physical boulders requiring time on wall and time resting are actually a route setters worst nightmare!
-
Talking of deadhanging championships, noted Canadian crusher Yves Gravelle won 3 events at the 2019 APL Armlifting World Championships:
https://ironmind.com/news/Yves-Gravelle-Certifies-on-the-Crushed-To-Dust-Challenge/ (https://ironmind.com/news/Yves-Gravelle-Certifies-on-the-Crushed-To-Dust-Challenge/)
Maybe this is the future? :-\
-
There should be a competition for who can do the most one armers on an 8mm edge.
This is what Instagram is, isn't it?
-
...relatively long, very physical type that's particularly hard to flash for whatever reason.
If everyone only gets 2 goes though, it's not going to yield much splitting at all! Either T1Z1, T2Z1, Z1 or Z2.
Ah yes, good point. Hadn't thought that through properly.
-
One type of problem I don't see that often but personally find very entertaining is the relatively long, very physical type that's particularly hard to flash for whatever reason. It's great when the climber's had a good first go, got quite far and, having being wrestling hard on the problem for ~1min, they're visibly absolutely bolloxed. you know and they know, ~90sec winded rest and they have to go again, ooof. May be totally wrong but I'd have guessed it's relatively easy to get separation on that type of problem too.
Totally agree on this, and again this is where steeper angles should play more of a part. No one's going to be doing coordination triple dynos through a 70' roof, but you could definitely do a properly physical, resistance power endurance problem with loads of teckers.
-
Well it's such a relief you guys are finally here and I hope Percy is taking notes, hard to believe he'd didn't think of that at some point in the last thirty years. But, no, looks like he was asleep at the wheel the whole time, coasting towards becoming the most respected setter in the world without ever bothering to even try the bleeding obvious.
To be even more controversial, for me coordination boulders are by far the most interesting development in climbing in my lifetime. Pretty much everything else has progressed in a predictable manner whereas this seems to genuinely open up new possibilities. Whether or not it resembles 'real' climbing remains go be seen. But consider this: when I first tried climbing indoors I was put off by two things. Firstly, it was indoors. Secondly, it barely resembled climbing on rock. In the early days there was a lot of effort made to recess holds whereas now we just accept every climb is set with a series of generally massive chickenheads. This fundamentally changes how you climb. But even more marked was the inability to make subtle footholds. Little progress has been made, you can still mostly climb in trainers indoors unless you need to heelhook. What inddors could replicate was a certain style of steep positive climbing. This initiated a feedback loop whereby the hardest climbs outdoors resembled those that could be most easily trained indoors. It's been great to see rock climbing start to break away form this style more in the last decade, but the tail also wags the dog whereby people can be by far the best climber by grade whilst being frankly embarrassing on many styles thatbare less easily replicated indoors.
I think we will see more coordination style problems outdoors. One significant barrier is probably the extra matting required to make attempts viable, but I'm far from convinced that rock does not lend itself to the movement. Fashion will drive it too, the problem with tiny holds on steep rock was it was always going to end in stretch-midget waifs being the best. But progress has been made, we've at least abandoned the belief that climbing static is somehow superior to slapping.
-
You should come to BoulderUK where Vickers loves a new school pebble dual-texture shinner. I'll happily drink coffee and watch you try those problems in your trainers.
-
To be even more controversial, for me coordination boulders are by far the most interesting development in climbing in my lifetime. Pretty much everything else has progressed in a predictable manner whereas this seems to genuinely open up new possibilities. Whether or not it resembles 'real' climbing remains go be seen. But consider this: when I first tried climbing indoors I was put off by two things. Firstly, it was indoors. Secondly, it barely resembled climbing on rock. In the early days there was a lot of effort made to recess holds whereas now we just accept every climb is set with a series of generally massive chickenheads. This fundamentally changes how you climb. But even more marked was the inability to make subtle footholds. Little progress has been made, you can still mostly climb in trainers indoors unless you need to heelhook. What inddors could replicate was a certain style of steep positive climbing. This initiated a feedback loop whereby the hardest climbs outdoors resembled those that could be most easily trained indoors. It's been great to see rock climbing start to break away form this style more in the last decade, but the tail also wags the dog whereby people can be by far the best climber by grade whilst being frankly embarrassing on many styles thatbare less easily replicated indoors.
This makes me want to ask two things. (i) Do you actually watch all the comps? To the knowledgable sports fan, runny, jumpy problems get pretty boring pretty quickly. (ii) Do you ever climb indoors?
I think we will see more coordination style problems outdoors. One significant barrier is probably the extra matting required to make attempts viable, but I'm far from convinced that rock does not lend itself to the movement.
Doubtful on this. The chance of nature producing rock with holds the necessary angle, size, friction, orientation and distances apart to force coordination problems must be vanishingly small. Also has to be close to the ground and have some kind of landing.... One for the outdoor boulder parks?
-
I think we will see more coordination style problems outdoors. One significant barrier is probably the extra matting required to make attempts viable, but I'm far from convinced that rock does not lend itself to the movement.
Doubtful on this. The chance of nature producing rock with holds the necessary angle, size, friction, orientation and distances apart to force coordination problems must be vanishingly small. Also has to be close to the ground and have some kind of landing.... One for the outdoor boulder parks?
I agree with JB here. Almost by definition, people climb stuff and find beta that suit their strengths. If you're strong at ratting on little crimps you kinda don't 'see' problems with big jumps and coordination moves because they don't even register. If you're a young comp wad bought up on a diet of jumping around then you'll find jumpy coordination problems outside, as that's what climbing is to them.
-
You should come to BoulderUK where Vickers loves a new school pebble dual-texture shinner. I'll happily drink coffee and watch you try those problems in your trainers.
(https://scontent.fman4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/73472787_10158103422923623_2754505360357195776_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=gZqc1LTTiJ0AX_9o9ma&tn=r8UEWGeeXqnqN8R2&_nc_ht=scontent.fman4-1.fna&oh=00_AT9w8-b5yYu_xBnJ_n9nFa_RsBF30IKeAmX6bkdSIEFwtA&oe=6274250B)
Can you get me a strong cappucino made with oatmilk please, PB. Ta.
-
I lean more towards what JB is saying on this (except for the nonsense about most indoor probs being doable in trainers). I’m massively impressed by the coordination style stuff that climbers have got good at as a direct result of competition bouldering. I’m blown away by the physical and mental agility demonstrated by folk like Max Milne. It’s right that competition bouldering shouldn’t feel bound at all by the limitations of the moves that are produced on rocks. That said you get some bad or repetitive setting on all styles of problem. From a viewer perspective, the more styles, angles and hold types the better imo. I do think there are certain types of climbing (e.g. big roofs, compression prows, proper aretes) that are underrepresent in comps but I imagine it's largely down to the limitations of the wall structures that can be practically used and the difficulty of filming pure roofs etc. I think we’re probably getting towards the end of an initial novelty period for coordination type setting and comps may now shift a bit towards a greater variety of styles anyway.
As for coordination problems outside. I don’t see many possibilities and I do look and have more of an eye for this than I used to. A lot of variables have to coincide for these moves to be produced. There are a few out there for sure and more to be found though. Of all the places I’ve climbed I think Castle Hill has the most potential in this style.
-
Criteria for finding jumpy co-ordination moves outside:
Relatively large positive holds between sections of blank rock (no minging little intermediates possible).
Boulders require a manageable landing.
Routes just need safe bolting and fall zone. Because of this I think there's a higher likelihood of developing routes with jumpy co-ordination moves than boulders, unless clearance of landings through use of tools becomes more acceptable (not advocating this).
Slate? Gneiss? Any ocean-smoothed rock.
Angle probably fairly unimportant, although I imagine there might be a sweet-spot range of angles at which body momentum works best, in combination with the rock not getting in the way. Vert to gently overhanging would be my guess.
Just need the comp co-ordination wads to get on an ab rope and get developing, these routes won't climb themselves.
-
Just need the comp co-ordination wads to get on an ab rope and get developing, these routes won't climb themselves.
Does anyone remember the Bandaloop Dancers on one of the old Masters of Stone movie. Bounding on a fixed line?
-
The point about people finding beta to their strengths is definitely very true. You can definitely see the current generation of climbers adopting a more dynamic style outdoors, these 2 boulders being good examples
https://www.instagram.com/p/CWDdyK1oUFg/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SHLj71EYEk
-
The youtube link shows a cool looking problem but in the end the simplest beta looks like it is just a one move dyno off an undercut. Its not quite the crazy multi-move competition problem the video tries to make it seem.
-
Jesús Christ Fiend can you please put a NSFW filter on that shit. It's disgusting.
-
I think we will see more coordination style problems outdoors. One significant barrier is probably the extra matting required to make attempts viable, but I'm far from convinced that rock does not lend itself to the movement.
Doubtful on this. The chance of nature producing rock with holds the necessary angle, size, friction, orientation and distances apart to force coordination problems must be vanishingly small. Also has to be close to the ground and have some kind of landing.... One for the outdoor boulder parks?
Rocklands has lots of potential, and indeed already has at least one double dyno that I can think of off the top of my head.
https://youtu.be/M4gqs5Vq05U
-
Strange to think comps are now based around the climbing style Johnny was so fascinated by years ago.
Looks like his ‘3rd generation dynos’ needed 3 generations to get established.
-
Just been catching up on this, good discussion, much of interest etc.
I got kicked off the team on 2 occasions - I think officially I was encouraged to take a break from the team - due to not taking it seriously, something to do with missing a training weekend when I was in Pembroke, going out to Millstone on the evening after another training session - I was saving myself during the day, but I did do London Wall and White Wall that evening so worth it in my mind.
:2thumbsup:
I'd rather they'd buy more crags (no offence Mr Mocho ::))
:agree:
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.
Very interesting posts from the horse's mouth, cheers Percy.
“ They should bring back 5 minutes+ for bouldering.”
I agree, and revert to… Once you’ve started you can finish.
4+1 gets my vote, enough to allow proper last ditch attempts, but keep it short enough.
As much as many people (on the evidence of this thread) would like bouldering to basically be a test of finger strength and dieting on a sequence anyone could read, the reality is it about solving problems.
:lol: classic.
Pulling on small holds on a blank steep wall isn’t a very good test of general climbing performance though. You might as well just have the world dead hanging championships.
There should be a competition for who can do the most one armers on an 8mm edge.
Right from the beginning I said I'd rather have a deadhanging (or campussing, or most one armers on an 8mm edge) than speed-fucking-"climbing"....
Slate? Gneiss? Any ocean-smoothed rock.
The Tubes near Betws?
-
My 0:02 as a fairly all-round punter who likes all sorts of rocks and movements and is both the polar opposite of a stretch-midget waif AND a springy slab ninja.
I really like watching the IFSC comps, and especially like watching the bouldering comps. Whilst there's always a few inevitable issues with difficulty balance (due to the setting challenges people have mentioned), overall the climbing, performances, movements, fun and challenges are inspiring to watch (including in the Olympics where the fucked-up format made the final results entirely irrelevant).
I'm sure there's much that could be improved to get the balance right in terms of being palatable to both climbing and non-climbing audiences, but as a climbing audience I generally really like what we've got right now. I'm not a fan of the pure coordination run and jump parkour stuff BUT I don't mind a bit of it as long as it doesn't dominate the setting (occasionally it does). I do like general blob wrestling with volumes where there's a bit of coordination / dynamism but also a lot of creative all-body movement (these also tend to have the most beta breaks, which I really like). I definitely like seeing the occasional neanderthal board climbing thug / crimp fest, it's all part of the broad variety of climbing.
Even so I'm glad to read that people like Percy are keen to keep progressing and keep trying to get it right :yes:
-
https://www.instagram.com/p/CcIQHf4L0kA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
This has got reposted by a lot of the climbers at Meiringen today
-
What problem are they attempting to solve?
-
Fuck knows, seems pointless. And extremely unpopular with the competitors!
-
And on the topic of comp formats, changes that have made it worse IMO in the last few years:
A) 4min. 4+ was much better, put a 1min cut off if you need to keep to a schedule. I've no interest in watching rushed climbing to beat the buzzer, which is what this tends to encourage, I guess the producers like it as they think it looks "exciting". Fuckwits.
B) Single sex semis/finals. I really liked having both M and F competing at the same time, it was pretty rare that clashes meant you missed crucial action, and anyway that could be fixed with better camera work/direction/use of split screen/replays. It highlighted the sex equality in climbing, and meant much less dead time (very important given how long a comp is).
C) Not sure if this is just Meiringen, or will be the case for all WCs, but having each sex's semis and finals on the same day is just stupid. It takes all weekend anyway, give the competitors time between rounds!
-
C) Not sure if this is just Meiringen, or will be the case for all WCs, but having each sex's semis and finals on the same day is just stupid. It takes all weekend anyway, give the competitors time between rounds!
Further to this, just had a look at the schedule (women's finals just started), and it's even worse for the men tomorrow - semis finish at 1315, isolation opens at 1400, and finals start at 1600! What on earth is the logic for this? Why change from semis one day, finals the next?? Please tell me it's not scheduling to fit around other stuff on Eurosport...