Molly and Will - final chance for Olympic qualification

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Potash said:
Or maybe people think this is a good idea. You would after all get the head to head aspect of performing monkeys that some seem to like.

The only reason I can think of for the current format is that they think it makes it more entertaining. Obviously it needs to be entertaining but undermining the integrity of the results seems to be a high price to pay. The ideal solution would be to have an 8 lane speed wall, of course this is logistically impossible - a time trial is the next best thing in my opinion.
 
bigironhorse said:
The only reason I can think of for the current format is that they think it makes it more entertaining.

Isn’t the current format how speed comps have been run for years or have they changed it for the Olympics?
 
teestub said:
bigironhorse said:
The only reason I can think of for the current format is that they think it makes it more entertaining.

Isn’t the current format how speed comps have been run for years or have they changed it for the Olympics?

Not sure how long the current format has been used for but I don't think they have changed it for the Olympics. I guess this could be the real reason they have used this system. Frankly, if speed climbers are happy with the head to head system then fine - I am not really interested in stand alone speed comps, but when it messes up the results in the combined format I think it is worth changing to a fairer system.
 
I agree with the thoughts regarding the scoring system and speed knock-out format. Time trial would be much better, a fairer scoring system could be found - though deffo too late for the Olympics I believe.

But the real scandal in Moscow was the much too easy final lead route. This had quite a big impact on the results, too. For me, in a lead comp, one should be able to climb in the personally most efficient rhythm, rather than having the focus on progressing as quickly as possible. For more endurance oriented lead climbers, going fast certainly is not the most efficient style.

I mean, I only know Sascha from seeing him at the gym when he trains (lead). I only climb ~8a, have very limited route setting experience and only occasionally feel the holds in his gym training routes. But I'm very confident that I could have set a more adquately challenging lead route for him and his peers than the one they had in the Moscow final?!?
 
mde said:
But the real scandal in Moscow was the much too easy final lead route. This had quite a big impact on the results, too. For me, in a lead comp, one should be able to climb in the personally most efficient rhythm, rather than having the focus on progressing as quickly as possible. For more endurance oriented lead climbers, going fast certainly is not the most efficient style.

Yes it was a shame that the Olympic position was decided on time rather than difficulty of the route. Quite a lot of the setting in Moscow was too easy in my opinion, I think it was the womens final that was essentially a two boulder comp because 5/6 climbers flashed the first problem.
 
In response to Duma’s point, take a situation where we have 3 boulder problems and the setting is a bit off. One is fairly easy and the other two are a bit too hard. One competitor misses the easy problem due to misreading a move or due to height issues or a multitude of other possible reasons and everyone else gets the problem. Neither of the other problems get topped, but our fictional competitor is the only one to get zones on either. That competitor can’t come higher than last, regardless of the fact they did better than everyone else on 2 out of 3 problems. Effectively, the first problem has acted as a knockout because of the nature of problems 2 and 3.

On a similar note, there’s been a bit of a trend recently to have the first move of the lead route being a parkour style move, standing up on a slopey volume into a press type of thing - men’s lead qualifier in the combined was, I think. Same situation, you miss the first move due to a mistake and you’re last. I do realise that this doesn’t illustrate my point as well as the boulder example, but I guess I’m trying to highlight that these early moves can be a bit of a lottery.

Let’s be clear here, I understand the points you’re all making and I recognise that the speed format isn’t perfect. All I’m trying to argue is that there are scenarios in all 3 events that can have similar impacts that would seem “unfair” or give results that seem wrong.

If you remove the head to head from the speed round, you’re removing the one thing that makes it watchable. I can see the value in a setup like the team pursuit in cycling, where you qualify for your knockout position - 2 runs, 5th to 8th ranked on best time, 1st to 4th get seeded and have semis and finals. That would mitigate a lot of the problems, but you’d still be left with the above issues in boulder and lead.

The biggest issue that I can see with the existing structure is not Bob from r-man’s example fluking his way through the rounds, because his opponents will be good enough to back off a bit, be solid and still win. The biggest issue in my mind is if someone like Tomoa gets drawn against a speed specialist in round 1 and gets beaten.
 
Can anybody explain how the speed climbing pairing are determined?

I assume they are seeded in some way.

This must be based on a speed only seeding right?
 
It all comes down to the stupid (yes it’s stupid) scoring system.

Is there another sport in the world that multiplies like this?

Sure - let’s give more reward for coming first - but that could be through points for the position - like F1 (25, 18, 15, 12, 10 etc down to tenth place) that doesn’t skew things quite as much...

Incidentally - is anyone else looking at other (non UK) forums that are debating this..? Same arguments? Same points? Interested if so.
 
Duma said:
Stabbsy said:
Let’s be clear here, I understand the points you’re all making

You clearly don't.
My mistake. In the face of your solid reasoned argument, I concede.

I’m sorry you don’t agree with my views, but that’s all they are - my views. There’s really no need to be rude about it. If you feel you can conclude that I don’t understand from what little you’ve seen and what little you know about me, then fair enough. It’s an opinion, that’s all it is and this isn’t UKC.
 
r-man already explained it better than I could. If you think that a mistake on a boulder problem has a comparable effect you haven't understood. I'm not trying to be rude.
 
I have to agree with Duma - your examples in boulder and lead don't address the core point... In boulder/lead, the second best on the day comes second*. In speed, it's quite feasible for the second best on the day to come 5th due to getting knocked out in the first head-to-head. Blowing the easy problem or dropping the first pokey move of the route means you weren't the best on the day, and while your fuck-up or wonder-fluke might influence the combined results, it influences all other competitors in that particular event in an equal manner, whereas in speed a wonder-fluke/wonder-fuck-up disproportionally influences the results of one athlete (your rival in that round) more than the other athletes.

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

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

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

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

If Igor fluffs it in bouldering or lead, Bob does not get rewarded any more than the rest of the field.
 
Clearly the solution is for JB and DanM to discover a fatal flaw in the design concept of autobelays which nullifies their compliance to the relevant EN standard. Meaning no more speed round.. If it wasn't for those pesky kids etc..

Or as others have said just run it as a time trial.
 
Or would it better to run it like some of track cycling events where they do a time trial of the distance which then seeds them in to quarter finals and so on.
 
bigironhorse said:
The ideal solution would be to have an 8 lane speed wall, of course this is logistically impossible - a time trial is the next best thing in my opinion.
Is this really logistically impossible? We are talking about the Olympics, there is a lot of money involved. The speed wall is a simple flat structure and you could squeeze the routes a bit more than currently so I don't see why 4, 6 or even all 8 climbers on the wall together is impractical. I bet the wall would still be cheaper than the best lead walls. You only need it for the top competition venues.
The more climbers at once, the less the unfair relative advantage to competitors from an individual mistake. Obviously if everyone is on the wall at once it disappears completely.
I agree with what others have said about the unfair advantage given to the competitor of someone who makes a mistake in the early rounds. However, I think the race format and the fact that mistakes sorely cost an individual make the whole thing more exciting. I think a straight time trial, especially with multiple attempts, would be really dull. I find the mental challenge of the speed competition more interesting than the physical in terms of the challenge it gives to the best lead/boulder climbers. A race as opposed to time trial is also consistent with other Olympic speed or any other racing) events where the point is not to get the faster time over a day, but to win the race in the 10 seconds that matters.
 
abarro81 said:
I have to agree with Duma - your examples in boulder and lead don't address the core point... In boulder/lead, the second best on the day comes second.
Agree that my lead example was weak (and I acknowledged it as such in my post). However, my boulder example was a climber who got closest to 2 out of 3 problems (2 zones, no one else getting any) and failed to top the one that everyone else got for whatever reason. That climber would come last based on the value system that we've chosen to adopt - favouring tops over progress on problems - but they were the best climber on the majority of the problems tried. So I'd disagree that the second best on the day will necessarily come second in bouldering because it relies too much on our definition of "best".

r-man said:
If Igor fluffs it in bouldering or lead, Bob does not get rewarded any more than the rest of the field.
So here's where we disagree, because I'd say how much Bob gets rewarded depends on his bouldering position. If Igor's slip up means he drops from 1st to 8th, then the person in second jumps to first and their score halves. The person in third jumps to second and their score reduces by 33% and so on, with the person in eighth jumping to seventh and getting a 12.5% reduction in score. Disproportionate effects depending on relative position. Whether those disproportionate effects on score translate through to disproportionate effects on position is less obvious, but you would expect that it would to some extent.

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

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

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think the speed format is perfect, but I do think the multiplicative system is the bigger issue.
 
I think the speed climbing format is fine as it is. Look at hurdles or to a lesser extent steeple chase. On paper, you could be the fastest but execution when it matters is essential. Which arguably is the same as lead climbing.


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

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

I’d like to see some kind of heptathlon where speed, lead and bouldering is included with some extra events.
I’d also throw in dry tooling as an event, a campus event and fingerboard event.
 
Stabbsy - your response still kind of misses the point. Create any scoring system you want for boulder, and the second best under that system (tops, progress, whatever) comes second.
The same is not necessarily true in speed, where the second fastest can come 5th. Surely in no world is the consistently second fastest not the second best at speed simply because of luck of the draw?

Igor/Bob: As I pointed out, while combined may be altered disproportionately, the results of the individual discipline are not. Which is what r-man was pointing out. Your argument against multiplication doesn't address the argument about disproportionate impact within a discipline, which is a separate issue, and which is where the head to head is an issue
 
It also seems *more* disproportionate due to the existence in climbing of climbers who only excel at speed, versus climbers who excel at both boulder and lead. The speed specialist has a very high probability of beating anyone who isn't a speed specialist. (Barring slips, but that goes for anyone). The same probability of beating everyone else isn't there for bouldering or lead rounds, where climbers are more equally matched - even Ondra etc.

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

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

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

Latest posts

Back
Top