UKC

On 8a.nu re the combined Olympic speed-lead-boulder format

"The Speed specialists performances are understandably very weak. However, it becomes almost embarrassing when they have problems moving from the start hold and are a miles from even getting close to get a zone. As there will most likely be at least two male and two female Speed climbers in Tokyo scoring zero, surely they as well as the spectators would very much benefit from a second zone."

 Embarrassing indeed - the sooner speed is separated out from the rest the better

In reply to ericinbristol:

I mean... Adam Ondra, arguably the best climber in the world, scored a zero in a bouldering round at this comp. Maybe not so embarrassing for the speed climbers? 

In reply to ericinbristol:

This does seem a bit "Jens desperately flailing around for an opinion". I mean Ai Mori was bloody awful at Speed climbing too. All multisport events have the occasional person who's great at some bits and bad at others.

In reply to Luke_92:

Good point!

In reply to ericinbristol:

Having watched the women's combined comp I thought it was great. At no point did I see anything that seemed like an embarrassment. 

In reply to all:

I withdraw the comment about it being embarrassing for the speed climbers.

I stand by my comment about wanting speed separated out.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Or disappeared? Honestly, how did it ever become a thing in the first place?

youtube.com/watch?v=vwKcPvC0VGw&

In reply to tehmarks:

Really? “Try to do a carefully defined thing as quickly as possible” is probably the most basic sporting impulse there is. Why on earth would it not be a thing?

In reply to tehmarks:

It was a thing in the USSR, I wonder how much influence Russian members of the IOC had in including it?

In reply to Lemony:

For the same reason that speed boxing isn't a thing, or speed archery (in the Olympics), or speed weightlifting. It's a completely irrelevant measure of performance in climbing.

In reply to tehmarks:

Yet people race up the nose on El Cap to try to get the record for the fastest ascent, Ueli Steck,........need i go on?

In reply to galpinos:

There's a world of difference between a speed record on a massive lump of rock or mountain and a 10m artificial wall with exactly the same set and exactly the same holds that takes under 7s to climb.

In reply to tehmarks:

So you're saying it is a relevant measure of performance, you just don't like the format?

In reply to tehmarks:

Speak to Hans Florine. He was a competition speed climber whilst also holding the Nose record. He reckons there's a link.......

Speed climbing in comps and speed soling the North Face of the Eiger are massively different, but they do come from the same place.

In reply to Lemony:

Because it's artificial, it's not what 99.99999% of climbers ever do, it gives a completely false impression of the sport to a non climber and it's clearly just pandering to the IOC because it's all about selling tv rights or advertising. 

In reply to galpinos:

No they don't.

In reply to ericinbristol:

I don't know, I think it adds excitement and a bit of risk. The match format means that people who are well matched (e.g. Miho and Akiyo) have to consider how safe to play it.

To those who are saying it's artificial, so is indoor climbing. I have never climbed outisde like I've climbed inside. Bouldering comps in particular are far removed from "actual" climbing and is increasingly more like parkour.

I thought the male speed specialist did really well in the combined today. He got quite high on the lead wall.

In reply to ericinbristol:

This looks likely to be the case for 2024:  "KLINGER presented the proposed sport climbing format for the Paris 2024 Summer Olympic Games. The sport will feature a combined bouldering and lead climbing event represented by 40 athletes, and a separate speed climbing event represented by 32 athletes. This is an increase in the number of athletes that will be represented at Tokyo 2020, as well as an increase in total medals available"

 (from here https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/160-sport-climbing-provisional... )

I think it was always the aim of IFSC to have separate events, but in negotiation with the IOC the only way they could get any climbing in for 2020 is in the current format.  God knows how it will all play out but I'd guess this will be the only year we'll see the 3 event combined medals.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I listened to a podcast with an American athlete and she said that speed was the discipline that was chosen and the IFSC managed pursuade  the ioc include lead and boulder in the deal. I think it was on the enormocast interview with Clair Buhrfiend.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Spot on.

In reply to Alex Riley:

The IFSC were asked to come up with the format; they polled all the member federations. The most preferred option was lead, this was suggested to the IOC, who strongly suggested that the IFSC consider a combined event. Our toe is now firmly wedged in the door, and it looks like there will be greater representation for climbing in 2024.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Any elaboration?

You take a set route, and get up it as fast as possible. Reasonably similar in my mind.

In reply to Alex Riley:

Oh really? Didn't know it happened that way!

I think the big limiting factor was that the IOC would only give them 2 medals (or 6 if you count silver and bronze) so it was either have one of the three disciplines (which would have been speed apparently!) or the current format, which I think is a better solution than speed only!

In reply to ericinbristol:

Unlikely - Sean McColl has podiumed in world championship lead events in the past, has podiumed in all 3 disciplines at world cups, and in 2006 was world champ in both speed and lead. Anouck jaubert (up until recently the speed world record holder) has competed on the French bouldering team. Jan Hoyer competed last year on the German speed team, and is a past bouldering world champ. Being a speed specialist doesn't mean they do speed exclusively. Mrs Miroslaw (nee Radzinska) had a pretty good Hachioji - Speed gold, 4th in combined; write her olympic chances off at your peril.

In reply to summo:

According to the graphs and numbers on this site, 99.9999...% ish of climbers climb HS, and an accurate impression of the sport would be climbing on grit with a piece of gear above one’s head 😂

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

True. And spending an hour on 1 pitch?

You think where climbing started, alpinism, exploration etc and now the pinnacle of climbing will be seen by many as launching yourself off or at bits of plastic as fast as you can, in building sponsored by coke or mcDs. A sad demise. Not sure why the climbing world needs the Olympics at all. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

hmmm. Not really.

The limits (self) imposed by the IOC are for 310 medal events and 10,600 athletes in any olympiad. In order to get in, 2 gold, and 40 athletes were what was on offer. 

In reply to summo:

Ever since climbing started it has consisted of many different games played on many different pitches. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of those early pioneers would have embraced indoor climbing and competitions with great enthusiasm.

Unsurprisingly many of those driving climbing standards around the world have a background in comps.

Personally I'd argue that it's your hagiography which disregards the history of climbing.

In reply to ericinbristol:

I'd also be aware that this Combined event in Hachioji was extraordinary in that it followed on from 3 individual discipline events with 3 or more rounds in each event. I'd argue that the Speed specialists were more likely to fall victim to fatigue and perhaps skin loss than the Lead and Boulder specialists when it came to having to perform in their weakest disciplines on day 8 or 9! Even just one qualification round of 5 boulders and two routes in the individual competitions plus warm-ups can be knackering.

In Toulouse and Tokyo, we will probably see Speed specialists looking a bit fresher in Boulder and Lead. 

It's interesting to note as well that if Boulder is your strongest discipline, you can conserve a lot of energy and skin compared to your competitors ahead of the Lead round if you flash/do boulders quickly. Janja also has the psychological pressure of having her strongest discipline deciding the results - not that she seems to let the pressure get to her, mind. 

In reply to summo:

To be fair, the Olympic competition doesn't stop anyone from engaging in Alpinism and Exploration. 

I agree it's really got far from where it all started out, and competition and indoor climbing are pretty far removed from each other, but I don't think competition climbing and outdoor stuff are mutually exclusive.  If anything people will be drawn from indoor and competition climbing to outdoor stuff.

Some big names in climbing pretty much started out as indoor climbers (Honnold, for one) and some ex-competition climbers are now big names in outdoor (Hazel Findlay competed a bit when she was a teenager, for example).

That said, does climbing need the Olympics?  What with the current boom in interest, especially Bouldering I'd say no, not really.  However I think the Olympics needs climbing and other sports with youth appeal.  The IOC needs to stay relevant, as people's interests and activities change... BMX, Skateboarding, Breaking, all coming into the picture...

In reply to ericinbristol:

I think as a format speed is okay. What they really need to do to spice it up is have Gladiators waiting behind them on a delay and trying to pull them off the wall on the way up. 

Contestants.... You will go on my first whistle! Gladiators.... You will go on my second whistle!

Speed is a spectacle and was probably important on getting a foot in the Olympic door. As more people get educated on what climbing is really about, it will hopefully get pulled. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Like athletics you get duathlons, pentathlons, decathlons etc.

There is plenty of scope for expanding climbing in a similar way.  For example:

- Climbing Lockwoods chimney in the dark and rain after the pub has chucked out

- Orienteering around LLanberis, Ambleside or Hathersage in the rain - points gained by mugs of tea drunk and hours of gear shops sales staff wasted by trying on numerous pairs of rock-shoes without buying

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

In which case I'd be willing and able to represent my country... 

In reply to ianstevens:

The ability to climb fast and efficiently up El Cap or the N. Face of the Eiger develops techniques and confidence to tackle objectives which might be impossible otherwise (eg Fitzroy Traverse), whereas monkeying up a comp speed wall does not really transfer to anything as far as I can see (as evidenced by the fact that the best climbers never seemed bothered with it until its daft I inclusion in the Olympics came along).

In reply to Robert Durran:

But aren't they all fairly pointless activities in their own right? I'm not saying they aren't fun though....

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

What! Outdoor comps on natural rock!?! how dare you, Sir. How very dare you. You'll have Bob Pettigrew and Doug Scott to answer to if this goes much further!

In reply to Alex Riley:

My own view of all speed ascents is that they are merely a sideshow to the main event of pushing the boundaries of difficulty.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You need to be a really well-rounded good climber to speed climb real stuff though. You have to be a great climber so you can smash quickly through easier stuff. You have to be physically at the top of your game, as you're not going to be resting for ~2 hours and there will be hard climbing. You have to be bold as hell as you're probably going to be running out/short-fixing/simul-climbing etc. 

What you need to be good at indoor speed climbing doesn't really correlate with anything you need to be a good 'real' climber, which I think is why it's quite controversial as an event to a lot of the wider climbing community. 

You look at the people who have the speed records on real rock - they are ten times out of ten fantastic climbers. What have the indoor speed climbers done? 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Entirely agree.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Much more than you care to find out?

In reply to PaulJepson:

I actually don't like watching international speed comps because its all over too fast but having a go at speed is fun even if you are totally crap like me.

Training speed definitely helps you climb more dynamically and improves hand-eye co-ordination.  I find I climb easy stuff quicker and with less energy. 

But the main reason for trying speed is that going fast and jumping for stuff without caring whether you fall is fun.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'd genuinely be interested in what kind of CV the likes of Reza has. It would be interesting to be proven wrong but it doesn't seem like there is much information on their climbing capability outside of speed.

Does anyone know what any of the top speed specialists are redpointing outside? 

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

The format could be 

a few pints in the Moon, up to the chippy for tea, back to the moon for a session and then lock in, sleep on windy ledge, breakfast in Stoney Caff, olympics at Stanage youth!

In reply to Iamgregp:

I'm not against indoor climbing or competitions. Bouldering or indoor lead would be very representative of the sport. It would show a sport that any person could replicate the next day after watching the olympics, albeit at a lower grade. 

Maybe I'm just too old and not down with the kids enoigh to get speed climbing. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

At least 7c+ route and 7B+ boulder for the winner of the speed world championships.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Just google them!

https://seanmccoll.com/about/

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassa_Mawem

etc etc

The 100m sprint bears no relation to real running but seems to be the most popular event in the Olympics.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Probably as relevant to running away from a lion or your enemy as lead comp climbing is to real climbing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

All sport is contrived. Don’t see why one sport is seen as less contrived than another. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes, but sports derived from a "real" activity should remain as relevant to that activity as possible to be credible.

In reply to summo:

No you are just too Western Europe / US centric.

Speed climbing was extremely popular e.g. in the USSR, both on rock but especially also on ice. You can thank these guys for modern crampon designs, curved ice axes and reverse picks, hollow ice screws, etc. 

Yes I know that these things all first became available here after they started to be made by some Western brands, but many of these designs were copies of / inspired by stuff visiting Western climbers had seen at Soviet comps, where speed was typically the biggest single event.

CB

In reply to cb294:

I've seen gladiators?

Really. Curved picks, hollow screws etc have been around for a long time. I'm very sceptical their origins lie in speed climbing competitions. 

What years are you talking about? 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Synchronised swimming?

Shot put?

Diving?

Beam/horizontal bars?

Hurdles?

Your can have your notion of what climbing is, but you can't disagree that speed at the Olympics isn't exactly out of place for pointless sports. 

In reply to Alex Riley:

Quite. Is there any sport that isn’t contrived? I can’t think of one. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

All sports have rules. The point is that most sports in the Olympics mirror what 99.9% of folk do in that given sport when not in the Olympics. 

Athletics, swimming, etc don't suddenly change markedly just because it suits the IOC. 

In reply to summo:

I suspect you’ll find every athletics discipline was originally changed to suit the olympics 2000 plus years ago. 

I don’t know much about gymnastics but suspect they have to include set moves in a timescale.

If you want a platform to demonstrate your physical abilities then it needs to have appeal to a wider audience, not be some kind of navel gazing exercise  

In reply to Robert Durran:

If we're going down that road, then how is speed climbing not like scrambling up a rock or a tree to get away from a leopard?

In reply to AlanLittle:

Because every tree is different and needs some element of route finding and problem solving whereas every speed route is exactly the same and progress is made by remembering and practising a specific sequence of events.  Climbing a tree is more like scrambling and climbing and speed climbing is more like the hurdles.

BTW it probably doesn't help to climb a tree to try to escape a leopard - perhaps a better example would be a crocodile which, as far as I know, can't climb itself.

In reply to gravy:

Every 400m track is the same. 

It’s how you create and measure world records. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Why?

Does it have to change purely to have mass media corporate sponsorship appeal, which is the essence of the IOC committee?

Apart from a few people who will post frantically about conquering mount Snowdon, most people's climbing is entirely navel gazing. Who cares what other thinking, I'd imagine watching me climb is exceedingly dull(even for the 2nd), but it doesn't matter, innit climbing for others benefit. 

I'll not post again as my view is clear. It just feels like climbing is selling it's soul, ethos, tradition for the sake of IOC commercialisation.  

In reply to summo:

It’s not really is it?

Some people race 100m on a track in 10 seconds. 

The majority of people still just go for a run with friends round a park. 

In reply to Lemony:

But why that thing? Why is it that grade, that length. Why is it the same each time when the other two are on-sight? Doing rolly-pollys down a track or egg and spoon race is "doing a carefully defined thing as quickly as possible".  It removes most of the skill, endurance and power requirements from a sport that is principally about skill, endurance and power. If people want it in the Olympics then fine but not as part of climbing 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Never raced at 100m at school? Same distance.

Park run 5km, exactly the same distance as 5km in an Olympic stadium. 

Any that's me done. Otherwise next you'll be telling me there is some contrived modern event, that has swimming, fencing, shooting, horse jumping and running in it.  

In reply to gravy:

I fully agree speed climbing was better before the introduction of the standard route.

Fair point. The leopeard was probably up the tree in the first place. Seems to work on rocks for baboons though, going by my extensive specalist knowledge of having watched some nature documentaries

In reply to summo:

This all comes down to whether or not you think there should be one solitary, unitary medal for "running" covering the 100m, 400m hurdles and the marathon. 

If you think this "running" medal should replace all the other athletic track events then you're probably likely to think the combined medal for climbing, includuing the speed, is a good idea.

If this sounds daft then you'll probably think the combined format is daft.  Luckily the chances of this daft format being repeated are slim and speed at least will be excluded from the climbing proper medals next time.

I had thought the spectacle of lead climbers doing the speed would be the low point of the format simply because I hadn't anticipated any speed climber qualifying but now I've seen it the combined for real I have to say the low point has to be the speed specialists trying to leave the ground which makes the worst 20 minutes of competitive sport I've ever seen. You may as well given me a wild card to the bouldering.

In reply to summo:

Parkrun is nothing like a 5k in a stadium and I wasn’t particularly talking about parkrun per se. 

Sunday I ran about 13 miles cross country on trails, in the mud and rain. That’s what a lot of my friends do. We also take part in races that are about 6miles but aren’t 10k and aren’t 25 laps of a track. 

All athletics events in a stadium are contrived and sanitised versions to demonstrate an athlete’s physical prowess. They bear no real world relation to the actual activity of running, jumping or throwing. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes and if you are running county standard in Yorkshire, UK indoor, European, worlds, commonwealth or Olympic those events, rules and distances are the same. 

Why does climbing need to change for the Olympics?

In reply to summo:

https://www.perfectdescent.com/what-is-speed-climbing/

"Speed climbing dates back to the origins of competitive climbing in 1940’s Soviet Russia where the time it took to complete long and difficult routes was a key scoring metric.  Competing head-to-head was a common practice among Soviet climbers and introduced to the world in 1976 with the first international climbing competition held in the Russian city of Gagra."

In reply to gravy:

I think it’s because climbing bears more relation to gymnastics than running. 

In reply to summo:

It isn't, is it? Its the same 3 disciplines as in all other climbing comps........

In reply to summo:

That’s because they were standardised by the olympics. 

In reply to summo:

Early to mid 1970s onwards. I am sure competitive (ice) climbing events were held even before, but am too young to know for sure. Curved shafts and reverse curved picks could definitely be seen in Soviet speed ice climbing comps when over here we were still banging our knuckles with straight ice hammers.... Hollow screws, often made from titanium tubing "repurposed" from the aviation industry were used at the same comps, but of course more likely in lead type events.

Anyway, my point was mainly that climbing as a competitive sport was introduced in the USSR quite some time before the first comps started in the West (Arco?), that we now take for granted technology first developed for these competitions, and that these competitions always also had some kind of speed event (both on ice and rock ) which today remains highly popular even on plastic. 

Looking down on the speed events seems very Western. 

CB

In reply to Ian W:

Why not just separate them to start with. Then decide if a preset speed course is really worth being an individual event 

In reply to Ian W:

Beat me to it...

CB

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No. AAA & IAAF not the IOC. But we digress. 

In reply to AlanLittle:

Going to a non standard route would to me make a lot of sense, both for the climbers, and the spectators. Watching the speed climbers warm up at Ratho at the world cup round last september on random 6a / 6b (the approx grade of the speed route) topropes was way better than the comp itself. The speed they flew up routes basically onsight , and the coordination and skill to use all the different size and shape of holds was utterly compelling. Put up parallel routes of about that (or even a bit harder; say 6c/7a) and race up those would make it much more realistic, and more in line with the ethos of the original soviet speedsters.

In reply to summo:

Next time round, if it works well in Tokyo. This time the IOC offered only one event each for males and females, which initially would have been speed only. After negotiating with the climbing federations they then came up with the current combined format as a compromise.

CB

In reply to summo:

Because (as per response either upthread or in a similar thread) running a combined event in 2020 was the only way to get olympic inclusion.

Anyway, more fun to be had in the future as the UIAA are trying to get ice climbing, both speed and difficulty, into the winter olympics.

In reply to gravy:

And yet a speed specialist came 4th in women and got a medal in the men.

Maybe with the combined format, in the next year some of the speed specialists (that have qualified for the Olympics) will improve their boulder and lead skills and cause a surprise in the overall results.

If a speed specialist gets a couple of zones and then comes mid-field in the lead, then they might win the whole thing. The speed specialists are actually pretty good at bouldering and lead (especially compared to us punters), but because they're B or C team in those, they just look poor when matched against the A team - especially on problems/walls that are designed to sort out rankings within the A team.

Looking at it the other way, the boulder/lead specialists hardly got moving in the speed. Yet they're improving all the time - Alex Megos came 8th in the combined speed but you could see how pumped up he was about getting PBs.

In reply to cb294:

I think you could be even more specific. The yanks embraced it, and if you look at the medallists in the speed championships over the years, there has been a regular smattering of non-"eastern bloc" recipients.

In reply to summo:

Speed on a preset course amongst other events is pretty standard,

Snowboarding for example - You have the various acrobatic events - plus a individual slalom - plus a group race down a set course.

Has the inclusion of the race detracted / undermined the other events?

In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Also, there are several Olympic events that have a combined - e.g. skiing.

In reply to ericinbristol:

To say before the competition that speed climbers might be unable to get off the ground in lead and boulder, merely as conjecture, is an odd take. The performances of Miroslaw and Khaibullin obviously put paid to this notion.

Let's not forget that speed climbers were often national-level boulder and lead juniors (at least) before specialising.

In reply to Michael Hood:

That's pretty much my point - let's pit Usain Bolt against Haile Gebrselassie vs Jasmin Paris and give one of them a single medal for "best runner".

In reply to gravy:

Which if the original event was the climbing Olympics with 100 different medals for different types of climbing - and running was being added - then there probably would be one medal for best runner.

If the inclusion of climbing is popular/successful then in 48 years time there may well be numerous disciplines with numerous medals - like the 500m traverse......

In reply to DancingOnRock:

They are fundamentally exactly the same: you move your limbs in some sort of coordinated fashion, and move your body as a result. Olympics runners don't move their limbs in completely different ways, or run backwards, or throw in a frontflip every kilometre. The only difference is that they're really quite good at it, and people want to watch them. The concept of running doesn't change. An Olympic 5000m runner is doing exactly what you do on a weekly Park Run - but better.

When was the last time you speed onsighted a route at Stanage? It bears no similarity to climbing as practiced by millions of people worldwide.

Climbing a long route quickly (on rock, or ice, or whatever your chosen medium) requires you to actually be a good, well-rounded climber. You absolutely can't say the same about climbing the same short route, at a grade far removed from the cutting edge of climbing, with the exact same holds in the exact same places every time. It's not pushing the boundaries of what is possible. No one will ever argue that the winner of the speed event is one of the top climbers of their generation based on them winning the speed event. It's a spectacle for the masses.

In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Demonstration event at the first Preston olympics.

In reply to summo:

How do you get them to stand still whilst you jump over them?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Not if Tomoa gets 2nd in speed and 2nd in Lead again, the rest of the field was considerably behind.  

Can you really imagine the speed specialists getting close to world standard in the other events in one year?

The guy who did well in the men’s is an all round competitor and has been for some time check out his results, one of the few who was ahead of the Olympic format! 

In reply to tehmarks:

I don’t agree. You’re still running over potholes, curbs, puddles, roots and the distance varies and the courses are all different. Running round a track is a completely sanitised version where you can be measured exactly in only one aspect. Speed to cover 5000m. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think we're making different point. My point is that your aim, in going out and running 5km, is still to...go out and run 5km, probably at a time that is good for you. Potholes and roots are the equivalent of loose holds - but you wouldn't argue that loose holds make rock climbing and competition lead climbing incomparable, because they're cut from the same cloth. The measure of performance is the same: how hard are you climbing? How quickly are you running?

I've yet to meet someone who proudly says 'I'm only a VS climber but I average 37s per route'. It'd be absurd.

In reply to Lemony:

Hagiography ? Had to look it up - Oxford dictionary (concise);    ‘The writing of the lives of saints ‘. Wassatabout ?   I’m ok with speed - climbing - and olympics though. 

In reply to barry donovan:

Very 90s of you...

In reply to ericinbristol:

And they’ve got a top rope ! 

In reply to tehmarks:

They’re all different courses. There’s no standardisation. VS is purely subjective. 

The objective of running 5000m is to get to the end. The objective of climbing is to get to the top. 

You remove all the variables in order to measure these things in different locations on different days.

Every other sport I can think of is the same. Regulation playing field or track. 

In reply to ericinbristol:

Sport climbing evolved from "real" trad climbing and almost all top trad climbers also spoprt climb and find it improves their trad climbing. Indoor lead climbing is the nearest thing which could practicably be an Olympic sport. 

Bouldering was originally seen as practice or training for "real" climbing, but has evolved into a discipoline in its own right while still being seen by most "real" climbers as an important component of their climbing. As such it is suitable for inclusion in the Olympics.

If, in a few yeares time, we see the top "real" climbers perfecting an indoor climb way, way within their ability so that they can climb it as fast as possible because they see it as a valid component of training for "real" climbing, then I would accept it as a suitable discipline for inclusion in the Olympics.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed. Not even the same time zone, planet or solar system. Time and the fact they ascend (in a totally incomparable fashion) are the only variables they share.

In reply to Ian W:

No, regarding the Bouldering the time format has totally changed. The performers and audience LOVED the 4+ minute rule. The 4 only often prevents a final attempt which denies the athlete opportunity and the audience seeing a last go, best go top! That's for starters.

The IOC has a history of insisting sports change rules so the discipline appeals to the coach potato/ marketing targets who have no concept of what 'try hard' means.

In reply to Fishmate:

And, in the mean time, a dead hanging competition, would be far, far more exciting than speed climbing. What climber wouldn't rather see Ondra and Megos going head to head in hanging off a shallow mono rather than them monkeying up a 6b+ or whatever on a speed wall?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sheeeeyat, I'd train for that 😃

In reply to tehmarks:

Life is not about what you do, it's about how you do it. Your simplistic view ignores the mental and psychological implications, discipline, technique, which quite frankly couldn't be further apart when comparing park runners to athletes.

In reply to tehmarks:

Again, your comparing completers against competers, which is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

In reply to Fishmate:

Several timing changes have been made to climibng comps over the years, not related to IOC requirements, but to the IFSC and UIAA getting an online broadcasting presence, and for ease of organising comps (not always the greatest reason, but there you go). I agree however that the change from 4+ to 4 was a bad move, although as the comps have developed, it has almost turned into a 3.30+. The BMC suggestino at the time was for a "4+, 5-" type of timing for the final, i.e. you must have started your final attempt by 4 mins, and must have finished by 5 mins (or 4.30, or whatever). Fixed time for broadcasting, one last do or die for competitors and spectators. Also the change from 8 mins to 6 mins for lead final; I dont see how the time saved is of any value; the final is essentially another comp, on a harder route, and 8 mins max would seem more appropriate. Example - the final of the world cup at edinburgh last year had a fabulous sequence at the top for the female route; however of those that got that far, they were rushing it as close to the time limit so fell off, and i had to pull Janja Garnbret off for going over the time limit, therefore without seeing how the best climber dealt with a brilliantly set sequence.

Indirectly you might be right, but thats a far too cynical approach; its to do with packaging highlights for tv highlights in the past. Recent developments in broadcasting mean those with a real interest can watch unlimited live streams on many platforms, with the main broadcasters wanting highlight packages, which dont rely on event timing./ duration.

In reply to Ian W:

Interesting info, has that idea been completely shelved?

Not cynical, you're saying media is considered before the sports themselves. I'm uncertain how this addresses changing a sports rules, to suit ones administration requirements. That appears to me as discernible fact.

In reply to Fishmate:

I dont think it has been completely shelved; it seems an obvious consideration anyway, and i cant believe nobody else thought of it as a possibility, but we aren't using it.........

There have also been 2 other recent changes to bouldering comps, both centred on the start position; for 2019 the change was from just touching the start holds simultaneously before moving off, to having to be in control of the 4 starting holds before moving off. Again, I don't see the logic for this, as it makes the problem harder to judge by adding some interpretation where there was previously a clear situation. Confusion will be sorted out once the setters get to grips with placing the start holds to suit the new rule, but the audience want to see the climbers climb; nobody has ever come to watch a comp to see me judge........