Forum: GLOBAL / Editorial / "Lucky Loser" sportmanship Olympic dilemma Login in to contribute
"Lucky Loser" sportmanship Olympic dilemma
  2017-03-19 00:00:00    
IFSC have decided that only the Top-6 qualifies to the finals in the Olympic. "For the Speed Final the concept of “Lucky loser” (7° and 8° ranked Athletes in the 1/8th finals) applies, as a quota of 6 does not allow the duel system."

As the "Lucky Loser" has nothing to win, this system could create a sportsmanship dilemma as many of the athletes are friends. It might just be that the "Lucky loser" competing towards a good friend, who could get a medal, will not give 100 %. Further more, if a "Lucky loser" makes it to the final or bronze final, such run is of no interest for the competition. In fact, it would actually be smarter for a Top-6 finalist to go a bit slow in order to save energy.
(We assume that the Combined ranking will only be based on the results of the Top-6.)

Imagine how strange it would be for any of the 12 finalist, hundred commentators and tenth of millions spectators to follow such a Olympic Speed final, where some athletes will not go 100 %.

Thesimple solution for this is to include Top-8 to the final. Alternatively have three lanes of Speed routes, where the two fastest qualify to the semifinals.
OffLine dreamingof8a
  2017-03-20 11:04:44    
I don't understand this - why should a lucky loser have "nothing to win"? They participate in the next round just like everybody else, right? Like in soccer worldcups, when there are 24 participating teams in 6 groups, the two highest ranked teams of each group advance to the next round PLUS the 4 best teams ranked 3rd (the "luxky losers"), to make it 16 teams in the 1/8-final. They can become world champions just like any other team in the 1/8 final.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2017-03-20 12:58:15    
They are only allowed to compete in Speed to make it possible to have four quarter finals. They will not be allowed to compete in the final in Lead and Boulder and therefore, they will remain #7 and #8 in the overall combined ranking.  
OffLine Herman
  2017-03-20 14:52:11    
Oh boy They DO have something to win. Even though there is only a medal for the combined ranking I'm quite sure they will be very proud if they get a good result on the speed only. It would be more logical to base the combined ranking on the top 8 of speed. That avoids most of your objections. Furthermore, in lots of sports you have the same dilemma where potentially not every athlete will give their 100%. It doesnt seem to be a big deal in all these other sports. So I don't see it as a big deal for those rare occasions you've described.
OnLine Bojan Leskošek
  2017-03-20 17:39:13    
The concept of 'lucky loser' is silly, if the 2 'lucky' ones are out no matter of their result in the final round. I would suggest only 6 climbers in speed finals, i.e. the same as in bouldering and speed. In final round speed should begin with "1/4F" in 3 pairs (1st from qualis with 6th, 2nd-5th, 3th-4th) with 3 winners and the fastest loser progressing to normal 1/2F and then F.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2017-03-20 17:42:46    
There are 6 guys competing for the medals and they do it through their relative ranking in three disciplines. If you include 8 guys in the Speed ranking, this means a good or bad result count more making Speed the most important discipline. Please give me one example in the Olympics with similar sportsmanship dilemma?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2017-03-20 17:46:18    
@ Bojan: I like your suggestion and I have actually also suggested that to IFSC. 
OffLine George Kahn
  2017-03-22 06:06:08    
Another way is to not use duels, but base results on time. Similar to how long-track speed skating does in the winter Olympics. Then six climbers in finals works fine.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2017-03-22 07:08:52    
I agree but IFSC has said that they want Duels like in ordinary Speed finals. 
OnLine Bojan Leskošek
  2017-03-22 12:31:16    
I agree duels should be preserved. @ George, note that duels and time are not exclusive: in World cup qualification everyone climb two routes in pairs (on two lanes), but only time decides who proceeds to the finals. What is not clear for OG is how IFSC plan to do speed in a qualification round. According to what they write here ("For the Speed Final the concept of “Lucky loser” (***7° and 8°*** ranked Athletes in the ***1/8th***  finals) applies") it's obvious they plan to have 1/8th (do they mean 1/4th?) already in qualification round of OG (20 competitors). I think this is bad - qualifications at OG should be the same as in world cup (only 2 speed lanes, 4-5 boulder problems and one lead route).
OnLine Bojan Leskošek
  2017-03-22 12:42:12    
4+0' rule is terrible, as everyone expected (except for the IFSC) ;)If it's really so important (I doubt) to finish in 4 minutes, 3+1' is better then 4+0'. Similarly, in Lead 6+0' sucks - it should read 6+2', i.e. if the climber reaches the "bonus" hold (near the top of the route), he/she should have 2 additional minutes to reach the top.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2017-03-22 12:45:32    
Great idea with 6 + 2 minutes for lead but what do you mean with 3 + 1 min in bouldering?
OffLine George Kahn
  2017-03-22 13:38:31    
After reading the responses in this thread, I still think using time in the finals is the best solution. 2nd best IMO is having the winners of the 3 duels compete along with the fastest loser. Lucky loser should NOT play a role in the Olympics: if it does, a person who does not make finals could determine who wins the Olympic medals.
OnLine Bojan Leskošek
  2017-03-22 14:44:53    
>  "Great idea with 6 + 2 minutes for lead but what do you mean with 3 + 1 min in bouldering?" -- Last attempt should start no later than at 2:59 (with a warning signal, say 10" before that) and should finish in the next 60 seconds.