GO TO GLOBAL SITE   se es us fr za it
de ca au no
at br ru ch
gb pl nl sk
Home | News | Videos | Articles | Gallery | Crags | Gyms | Search - Tick List | Forum | Ranking | Blogs | Contact | New Member
Forum: GLOBAL / Editorial / Bouldering understandable, fair, anticlimax, cheating etc Login in to contribute
Bouldering understandable, fair, anticlimax, cheating etc
OffLine 8a.nu
  2019-05-09 00:00:00    
8a was the only media present during the IFSC Olympic meeting with IOC in Lausanne last month. Here are improvements in regards the Bouldering format and rules suggested by me.

Understandable
1. Digital understandable scoring live updated on the TV-screen so even the non climbers can follow who is in the lead and what is needed to advance.

2. Take out the letters T and z and count and present only points 34 points instead of 3T4z. Ties will be separated by number of tries as already done. ”Welcome to the Bouldering Final. You get 1 point for controlling the zone and another 10 for topping out. The best possible score is 44 points.”

Anticlimax/Fairness/Cheating
1. How to judge ”control” matching the top but swinging out at 3.59 sec? The solution is to say you just need to touch the top before 4 minutes.
2. Appeals must be filed within 10 min and presented on the live screen.
3. How to deal with spectators screaming beta?
4. How to deal with boulderers looking at each other in semi?
5. The conditions deteriorates and with 8 finalists the disadvantage starting first increases. Better brushing after 4 two climbers including standing on stairs with blowing equipment. Change to LED-spotlight so the temperature do not rise.

Format changes after 2020 – This could be tested on Youth
a. Add one more zone = More fair and more excitement
b. Increase to 8 finalists/4 boulders = More countries and more action
c. Save 30 – 40 min: Rotate on 2 first boulders and only Top-6 finish
d. Break before last boulder = Commercial/Coffe break needed in 90 min show
e. Rotate starting order before last boulder = More fair and increased excitement
OffLine Kuba Główka
  2019-05-09 10:56:59    
Just one comment to the last point. My opinion it would be best for the show (and fairness! - you are best you get the most pressure) to start the last boulder in reverse standing order - so that you get the possible winner as the last action of the final.
OnLine Jens Larssen
  2019-05-09 11:24:32    
This is exactly what I also think :)
OffLine Mark Nauser
  2019-05-09 13:02:56    
And by doing that you would completely break the rest time which is now almost the same for all competitors. In the worst case, the best climber would start fourth boulder immediately after finishing 3rd one. He would get no rest time at all, while his greatest threat competitor could potentially get 20 minutes or even more of rest time.

I bet that'll really increase fairness - said noone ever!
OnLine Jens Larssen
  2019-05-09 13:05:17    
Please read above it says there should be a break before the last boulder.
OffLine Mark Nauser
  2019-05-09 13:09:14    
That's a separate issue - if you want to tie it to reverse order, you need to explicitly define this break there.

And I disagree with a break anyway - first, this will never get accepted when in fact IFSCs goal in the last years has been to shorten competition duration (remember throwing out the 4+ rule and always shortening allowed lead/boulder times in the past?) and second, this murders the show for spectators/live viewers.
OffLine Mark Nauser
  2019-05-09 13:13:50    
And please - could you stop spouting your LED nonsense already? You proposed theories without ANY EMPIRICAL PROOF WHATSOEVER and now you're proposing your quasi "solutions" for these unfounded theories. Go study physics first, or at least consult with electronics experts before selling us LED lights as a save-it-all. I agree that cleaning of holds should be better defined, though. Now it is organised somewhat amateurish and could definitely be improved.
OffLine JLH
  2019-05-09 16:00:57    
>a. Add one more zone = More fair and more excitement

What were your exact arguments? Why specifically you think it is more fair (to use two instead of e.g. one, three or none?)? Why is it more excited?
OnLine Jens Larssen
  2019-05-09 16:07:13    
@ Mark: "Break before last boulder = Commercial/Coffe break needed in 90 min show"

@ JLH: A person that reaches the the second last hold on all problems should be higher ranked than the guy who just barely get the zones.

It is more exciting as you will see three scoring points instead of just two.
OffLine JLH
  2019-05-09 20:37:36    
>A person that reaches the the second last hold on all problems should be higher ranked than the guy who just barely get the zones.

So you suggest putting second zone on the second to last hold in every boulder?
You also probably agree that a person which reaches all four tops with only one hand is better then the one who just barely gets the second to last holds, don't you? Why don't you suggest then a third zone? And probably some more down below?

>It is more exciting as you will see three scoring points instead of just two.
So the audience is excited about seeing more scorings? Putting ten must be a delirium...

The ultimate and only natural goal in bouldering is reaching THE TOP. The single zone is necessary evil (to break ties). Don't try to push it more...
OnLine Jens Larssen
  2019-05-09 21:27:25    
I think three zones as they do in USA might also be ok but first we have to check out how two zones work. Personally, I do not think three zones is the way forward as this might not suite all boulders. There are pros and cons for every system and two zones is best according to me. Where the put the second zone is up to the setter.