A speed climbing record has been broken - with a time of 6.995 seconds.
In competitive swimming. Times are only given to 2 decimal places, as it is recognised that it is impossible to build swimming pools accurately enough. https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/757794/the-simple-reason-why-swimmers-k...
Why is speed climbing different?
I just googled the speed of boxers' punches, assuming that this could be comparable to the speed of a climber's final slap for the buzzer. The max speed measured in a scientific survey of 16 boxers was 9m/s, which would translate to 9mm in 1/1000s, or almost 1cm. So measuring in 1/1000s wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.
Just speculating, but it could be because in swimming the lanes are allowed to be up to 3cm different whereas the speed climbing walls may be more tightly specified.
3cm error in the length of a 50m pool equates to 9mm error in the height of a 15m wall. I'm no expert but I could well imagine them expanding or shrinking by that much at varying temperatures.
Surely a swimming pool could be accurately measured and ‘spacers’ (for want of a better word) installed at each end to provide the required accuracy?
Seems like bollocks to me:
a. sound only travels at 343ms-1 so 34cm in 0.001 seconds. If they wanted to claim 0.001s accuracy in a fair race they'd even need to measure the location of the start buzzer relative to the climbers to make sure one didn't hear it before the other.
b. they would need to do serious work on the pads the climbers hit at the end to prove slight differences in material and mounting to the wall couldn't make for a 0.001 second difference in measured time. My guess is they'd need to move from slapping mechanical pads which take a degree of force to activate to a light gate.
> Why is speed climbing different?
Because, being a relatively new sport, no-one has properly thought about it?
Lot's of people don't really think whether numbers are meaningful. (I wish I could persuade all science undergrads to automatically think about any number they quote.)
Bobsled racing times runs to milliseconds. Makes sense, as this corresponds to 5cm or so at the end run speed, so is easily measured using light gates.
CB
Yes, one of my pet peeves, too, but not only confined to undergrads. Just last week I rejected a manuscript where (amongst other crimes) they gave average fractions of cells expressing some marker to five significant digits, even though they only had counted tens of cells in three replicas....
CB
a) is done in high level athletics comps, with a speaker behind every start block rather than the sound travelling across the track from a gun fired at the side.
> A speed climbing record has been broken - with a time of 6.995 seconds.
That record can only hold on that particular route on that particular artificial wall. It will not be transferrable to any other route, so it's pointless as a record.
And, given that holds will degrade/change with time, probably meaningless in any case.
What Coel said; they don't understand the problem. They've got a shiny stopwatch, and they think that's all that matters, and believe what it says.
> they gave average fractions of cells expressing some marker to five significant digits, even though they only had counted tens of cells in three replicas....
I once had a student give their answer for the average density of the universe as 10^64 kg per m^3.
I can understand someone going wrong by multiplying by mega-parsecs-cubed rather than dividing. But to then not realise that the answer is just silly?
> Lot's of people don't really think whether numbers are meaningful. (I wish I could persuade all science undergrads to automatically think about any number they quote.)
In Walter Lewin's rather excellent series of video lectures on Physics for Undergrads at MIT, one of the very first things he says is "A measurement without knowledge of its uncertainty is meaningless".
> (I wish I could persuade all science undergrads to automatically think about any number they quote.)
Don't you mean "I wish I could persuade all politicians to automatically think about any number they quote"? 😄
> That record can only hold on that particular route on that particular artificial wall. It will not be transferrable to any other route, so it's pointless as a record.
You could say that about any location-based athletic endeavour. Running tracks vary, marathon routes vary, velodromes vary...
Olympic events must be timed to milliseconds.
That is good. World record for orders of magnitude off?
When my children were still in school I always encouraged them to quickly cross check anything they claim (or hear in a discussion for plausibility). Estimating stuff is a useful skill, and you need to practise keeping track of which parameters you overestimate and which you underestimate. So, estimating the surface of the earth: A cube with 10.000 km edges and ten sides....
Doing a calculation just with the units to see whether a formula you came up with is also good practise: If you are looking for a time, coming up with a pressure tells you something may be wrong.
CB
What was the previous record?
Assuming the time is from the buzzer starting to buzz and the button being pressed and the timing is all electronic, then the timing is accurate and precise.
Whether it needs to be is really the question. Will a climber ever beat that time by 0.001s?
> Seems like bollocks to me:
> a. sound only travels at 343ms-1 so 34cm in 0.001 seconds. If they wanted to claim 0.001s accuracy in a fair race they'd even need to measure the location of the start buzzer relative to the climbers to make sure one didn't hear it before the other.
> b. they would need to do serious work on the pads the climbers hit at the end to prove slight differences in material and mounting to the wall couldn't make for a 0.001 second difference in measured time. My guess is they'd need to move from slapping mechanical pads which take a degree of force to activate to a light gate.
Agree. Not to mention building tolerances of a 15m temporary climbing wall out of wood and metal, with holds bolted and screwed to plywood panels. There are just far too many variables to make a .000 measurement useful or even fair.
The record is only quoted to 2 decimal places https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/world-competition/speed-world-recor...
3 decimal places are used to split ties.
> Don't you mean "I wish I could persuade all politicians to automatically think about any number they quote"? 😄
... to which the inevitable response is
TRAITOR!
>"That record can only hold on that particular route on that particular artificial wall. It will not be transferrable to any other route, so it's pointless as a record."
It's still "the record" on an official wall. I don't think it matters much if there is very marginal advantage at one venue our another.
> So, estimating the surface of the earth: A cube with 10.000 km edges and ten sides....
A cube with ten sides?
I posted this in some other thread just recently, fits here too..
https://xkcd.com/2205/
> Agree. Not to mention building tolerances of a 15m temporary climbing wall out of wood and metal, with holds bolted and screwed to plywood panels. There are just far too many variables to make a .000 measurement useful or even fair.
Not to mention that gravity varies by about 0.5% around the various cities too. Though at least there is precedent in that the pole vaulters and high jumpers tend to ignore that fact.
(more XKCD: https://xkcd.com/852/)
> The record is only quoted to 2 decimal places https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/world-competition/speed-world-recor...
That says 6.99s, but 6.995s quoted to 2 decimal places is 7.00s isn't it?
Sorry I should have been clearer. The time is rounded down.
From IFSC Rules:
"9.15 The climbing time for each competitor shall be defined as the period between the Starting Signal and the completion of the competitor’s attempt. The timing system shall:
A) record and display the climbing time for each competitor separately.
B) be capable of measuring times to an accuracy of at least 1/1000s:
1) times shall be recorded to the nearest 1/1000s for the purposes of ranking;
2) times shall be displayed rounded down to the nearest 1/100s."
> Marathon? Certainly not in CC skiing.
> CB
As I understand it most (if not all) Olympic sports the time is reported to 0.00 sec but the timing must be to 0.000 sec and currently Omega are timing to 0. 0000sec and can measure to 0.00000.
If the ranking is determined so close to the limit of detection, perhaps a longer course should be considered?
Isn't it a bit like marathons? There's a difference between recording a time accurately and perfectly recreating the exact same conditions for each world record attempt.
> "9.15 The climbing time for each competitor shall be defined as the period between the Starting Signal and the completion of the competitor’s attempt.
how do they measure false starts? is that done with a pressure pad like in proper sprints? and do they position the start signal so that it's received by the climbers at the same time? etc
Thanks Graeme, that makes sense.
However, looking at the wall building rules, it gets worse!
No tolerance is stated for the height of the walls. And the tolerance for angle is -0.5 to +2%
I didn't find anything about the mats they start on.
There is a Speed Licence Rules document that gives the various measurements which includes a distance from start hold to the centre of the finish pad and this is +/- 20mm. There is also a measurement from the start hold to the floor which is +/-10mm.
The +/- for the angle of the wall says to me that you can build the wall a tad too steep if you like but in reality that means no record as it is too steep.
There is a seperate very detailed specification for the timing system which includes the pads.
Thanks. That's pretty much answered all my questions!
Interesting numbers.
Looking at the progression of the women's record some of them are pretty close. In particular there's two consecutive records at 7.32 seconds (presumably separated by the 3rd digit). Let's pretend the record was 7.329 secs and was improved to 7.320 secs.
Let's estimate the distance travelled is nominally 15m (not sure what the actual number is but presumably it's close), which means best case is 14.97m and worst case is 15.03m. Let's also assume any error in the timing equipment is negligible. Using the times from above:
14.97 / 7.320 = 2.0451 m/s
15.03 / 7.329 = 2.0508 m/s
So it's possible that the new record holder actually climbed slower than the old record holder!
Another parallel to marathons is some courses are faster than others (as I understand - I’ve never ran one). So some official walls might get a reputation for being faster than others.
Franky, who cares about speed climbing...
> Another parallel to marathons is some courses are faster than others (as I understand - I’ve never ran one). So some official walls might get a reputation for being faster than others.
Obviously marathon courses vary greatly. A better comparison would be with running tracks, some of which are considered quicker, but it is hard to see how speed walls could vary, except, maybe by how new or chalked/brushed the holds are.
> Frankly, who cares about speed climbing.....
Indeed
>"but it is hard to see how speed walls could vary"
Due to thermal expansion the diffrence between a warm day and a cold day in Ratho is around 4mm. There's 0.0016 seconds right there.
I do wonder about the construction tolerances. I'd be impressed if the distance between the T-nut on the lowest hold and the T-nut on the highest hold could be controlled to within +/-10mm.
Also the surface texture might have a bearing with all the smearing that happens.
> Obviously marathon courses vary greatly. A better comparison would be with running tracks, some of which are considered quicker, but it is hard to see how speed walls could vary, except, maybe by how new or chalked/brushed the holds are.
I'd worry about the matching between the pads at the top the climbers hit. If one side gets climbed on more than the other that pad will get bashed more than the other and the activation force could be reduced resulting in it reporting a hit very slightly faster.
In general mechanical switches and pads which involve 'springs' either real springs or compressing foam are bad, if you want extreme accuracy you want to keep it electronic or optical.
> Another parallel to marathons is some courses are faster than others (as I understand - I’ve never ran one). So some official walls might get a reputation for being faster than others.
This certainly applies in velodromes, where each track has its own character.
> Franky, who cares about speed climbing...
I find it quite interesting as an observer. The whole Olympic climbing thing creates a whole new athlete, quite different from the traditional competition climber with its more varied requirements.
The nature of speed climbing introduces an interesting side bet too, who will get busted first? It has doping written in big letters all over it.
I would like to see a longer course to give a greater differential and for better viewing. 25m would give similar times to 100m sprint.
Finding 25 metre high venues could be challenging
I would expect that was factored into the decision making. However on the bright side, if the Olympics drives the sport as has been seen in other areas, it could lead to more 25m training walls available.
Crikey, I have just realised what that means, 12s to the top of kendal wall.
> However on the bright side, if the Olympics drives the sport as has been seen in other areas, it could lead to more 25m training walls available.
You mean more 25m walls with two identical dull routes which are never changed taking up space and resources, leaving less room and resources for training walls.
Well, it's all pipedreams but I would imagine that IF 25m became the standard, wall managers would monopolise on the additional height requirements and provide more than just the dull repetitive stuff.
Until they extend the airport and start parking jumbo jets in Ratho, I don't think the space for the two speed routes with ever become critical.
Anyway, once the new 25m speed walls are up and running, we'll get the 15m walls back to use for enduro training crimp ladder laps.
> Anyway, once the new 25m speed walls are up and running, we'll get the 15m walls back to use for enduro training crimp ladder laps.
Once the Olympic format switches to individual events and nobody is interested in speed climbing any more, I'm hoping to get the choice of 15m or 25m enduro crimp ladder laps.
They told me skateboarding was just a fad in 1976. Now it's in the Olympics.
#speedclimbing4ever
> They told me skateboarding was just a fad in 1976. Now it's in the Olympics.
But do "real" skate boarders great it as a joke? (Serious question)
What's a "real" skateboarder? Or indeed a "real" climber? (Serious question)
> Once the Olympic format switches to individual events and nobody is interested in speed climbing any more, I'm hoping to get the choice of 15m or 25m enduro crimp ladder laps.
I think you might be looking at this through climbers blinkers. For the sofa dwelling TV sport officionado, which is what the Olympics is about, I can imagine lead climbing being cut first. The other two disciplines are more uninformed spectator friendly.
I think a 9mm error in an IFSC Speed Wall WOULD be a problem. Anyone from the speed community wanna comment?
> What's a "real" skateboarder? Or indeed a "real" climber? (Serious question)
> For the sofa dwelling TV sport officionado, which is what the Olympics is about, I can imagine lead climbing being cut first. The other two disciplines are more uninformed spectator friendly.
Really? Lead climbing is very easy to understand - everyone climbs separately and the winner is the one who gets the furthest. In comparison, bouldering is completely unintelligible. Obviously Speed is what has captured the media's attention, but I think it remains to be seen whether its repetitiveness pulls in the viewers, once they realise that the head to head nature is irrelevant (or is it? I'm not sure now.......).
> Really? Lead climbing is very easy to understand - everyone climbs separately and the winner is the one who gets the furthest. In comparison, bouldering is completely unintelligible. Obviously Speed is what has captured the media's attention, but I think it remains to be seen whether its repetitiveness pulls in the viewers, once they realise that the head to head nature is irrelevant (or is it? I'm not sure now.......).
One advantage that Lead Climbing has is that failure results in a fall and the viewer is quite literally seeing someone holding on for as long as they can before plummeting downwards.
Professionally filmed and Lead Climbing could definitely be more attractive to the viewer than either Bouldering or Speed.
> I think a 9mm error in an IFSC Speed Wall WOULD be a problem. Anyone from the speed community wanna comment?
Apparently not a problem. GA’s post above suggests a total of +/-30mm would be acceptable!
Yes, comparing with other sports, speed climbing is an obvious draw because iris a race. Modern comp bouldering with its multiple dynos and inverted wackyness is similar to gymnastics. Lead climbing, whilst having elements of both doesn't hold the same appeal to a non participant.
I remember watching Jerry in 89 on a grainy B&W portable. It gripped me as a climber, not so the rest of the house.
If it proves successful, there is nothing in the way of speed climbing becoming a single start event like the 100m sprint.
I find it ironic that they will claim world records in milliseconds but still maintain that climbers can false start if they start after the buzzer but before 0.10 seconds.
>"If it proves successful, there is nothing in the way of speed climbing becoming a single start event like the 100m sprint"
What do you mean by "single start event"?
Your mention of the 100m sprint has me thinking of an 8 lane speed wall and the rounds run off like the 100m. Perhaps speed climbing could become a track and field event!
Exactly what you suggest, 8 lanes racing simultaneously.
> I find it ironic that they will claim world records in milliseconds but still maintain that climbers can false start if they start after the buzzer but before 0.10 seconds.
That just follows on from other events; the sprint events in athletics have a rule whereby any movement within 1/10 sec of the start gun / buzzer is deemed to be a false start. I believe its also the same in swimming, but don't know for certain.
Competition lead climbing can be done as a head to head race, I've even seen it done this way, live, which is really saying something because I barely ever attend a "high-level"(*) climbing competition (I hardly even watch them online etc).
Same route is set on more than one wall, climbers start at the same time, if they both complete the climb then the winner is the fastest one. Otherwise the winner is the one who got the furthest.
* by which I mean, not the friendly free-for-alls at the local wall, but a proper high profile one involving world-class climbers.
> That just follows on from other events; the sprint events in athletics have a rule whereby any movement within 1/10 sec of the start gun / buzzer is deemed to be a false start. I believe its also the same in swimming, but don't know for certain.
There's a critical difference, which is that the gun in speed climbing is preceded by a regular countdown rather than by an untimed holding stage.
There's no point in providing a metronomic countdown if you're then going to disqualify people for predicting the start very accurately.
It also seems like the countdown is asking for trouble in producing false starts. Is the objective to get climbers to wait until they've heard the gun or not?
Thats a good point; I'd forgotten about the countdown. It would be more logical to just do away with it. Graeme!! tell Tim to change the start procedure.
When we've been running the BSCC's at places without countdowns (using an airhorn as the starter - no expense spared, nothing is too good for us, etc), nobody has batted an eyelid and things progressed well enough.
> Yes, comparing with other sports, speed climbing is an obvious draw because iris a race. Modern comp bouldering with its multiple dynos and inverted wackyness is similar to gymnastics. Lead climbing, whilst having elements of both doesn't hold the same appeal to a non participant.
Well, it will be interesting to see how it plays out; whether speed climbing prevails due to some public interest despite its joke status amongst most climbers or whether lead climbing can prevail. I think the important thing is that the disciplines are separated to get rid of the cross contamination which devalues both.
Although it's been a few years since I was totally up to speed with skateboarding, as far as I remember the skaters who take part in competitions are drawn from a select cohort of skaters who are up for a bit of competition (Bob Burnquist, Buckey Lasek, Ryan Sheckler, Koston etc) who are amazing skatboarders and well respected... However there's another, even greater amount of equally incredible skaters who you'll never see competing in the x games or Olympics. Tom Penny barely puts together video parts, let alone turn up to an event at a particular time or place.
This is pretty similar to climbing right - there's some amazing competition climbers out there who are really well respected, but there's even more who you'll never see anywhere near it... Can't see Honnold or other of his ilk going near it?!
The format of the Skateboarding event at 2020 looks legit though, steet course and a park course and no bloody vert.
Vert skateboarding is the speed climbing of skateboarding.
That's helpful, thanks. But it doesn't answer my question as to which are the "real" skateboarders. Admittedly my question was largely rhetorical.
God knows who the "real" skateboarders are? Or climbers for that matter!
> I think the important thing is that the disciplines are separated to get rid of the cross contamination which devalues both.
No, to me that is part of the appeal of Olympic climbing, the variety within the disciplines creates a new athlete.
Not a climber, not a comp climber but an Olympic climber. It may challenge our sensibilities (particularly in the west) but the outcome will be interesting to see.
> No, to me that is part of the appeal of Olympic climbing, the variety within the disciplines creates a new athlete.
> Not a climber, not a comp climber but an Olympic climber. It may challenge our sensibilities (particularly in the west) but the outcome will be interesting to see.
In the same way that it would be interesting to see the World Cup partly decided by a keepy-uppy contest.
As opposed to the usual diving followed by penalty shoot-outs?
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...