Comments on: ABS Nationals-Commentary

By: Outsider

Outsider — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:23:26 +0000

What I really fear about USA Climbing and the comps is the pre-occupation with getting climbing into the Olympics to the exclusion of many more pressing issues. The Olympic opportunity, if available, is a 2020-2024 event which really means that Climbing is not in for the current round of games as anything beyond 2016 is a complete unknown.

If it is an Olympic opportunity, the current view is it is for speed. That is scary, speed is now a mechanised event on a standard wall. My fear is that the average Olympic spectator won’t get it and the true beauty and skill of today’s great climbers will be completely lost when a track and field star eclipes the climbers on the IFSC speed wall.

USA Climbing ought to concentrate on sponsorship at every level. I am galled by the fact that these kids basically advertise for gyms that charge full freight and give them nothing. Once that issue gets sorted out, there are all sorts of opportunities to attract moeny to the sport. But, as long as the gyms control the advertising on the kids jersey for nothing, little can happen.

This is not brain surgery, dozens of other off-mainstream sports have delt with these issues, most are headquartered in Colorado. Until sponsors see they can get something of value in exchange for their investment, they will stay away.

The flip side is that even in what was and remains an offbeat sport 20 years ago, good sponsorship basically fully funded team participation. Without good sponsorship, the sport can drift the direction of figure skating where the deepest wallet for private coaches and arrangers pretty much determines the finish order these days.

By: DB

DB — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:52:09 +0000

From a competitors standpoint, I really enjoyed the problems, but It felt to me like there were basically two styles of climb. Gimicky slab and giant moves on good holds. While these are entertaining, and the top few certainly win out, I would like to see much worse holds and more manageable moves for shorter climbers. People like woods and carlo did manage to pull through, but I think height has become a very clear advantage. At least in qualifiers there was not one hold on all six problems that I would consider to be anything like poor (with the exception of the sloper on men’s two, but that was either a bump or skipped). As a shorter competitor it’s just frustrating to feel really spanned on almost every problem.
Oh, and I haven’t seen a legit crimp problem at any major competition in years, despite it being a predominate style outside.
I don’t mean to complain, and I really do enjoy the setting, but I don’t think that it accurately divides the field beyond showing that Daniel is a monster.
Thanks,
-Dan

By: Karma

Karma — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:01:51 +0000

Not to nitpick, but saying things like “This type of setting does not allow other competitors to do well compared to Daniel who is by far the strongest in the field” reminds me something that one of the businesspeople in Atlas Shrugged would’ve said.

By: B3

B3 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:19:31 +0000

I do agree that the scoring system is arguably not the best, although I think it is the same basic system used in the World Cup. The scoring is always a tricky thing, because it seems the person who has the disadvantage is always the one complaining, and it seems someone is always at a disadvantage.
I would like to say that I think bouldering comps have come a very long way in the last 5 years. Five years ago I would never have imagined that the US would be hosting a World Cup in which thousands of spectators would show up, the city of Vail would pour literally tens of thousands of dollars into (specifically climbing) and that this event would feature climbing as the premier attraction. Having seen hundreds of European competitors fly over in the last two years was just awesome.
After watching Shaun White win the Gold, I think climbing is a difficult sell to the main stream media. What can really grow the sport is the gyms, Nearly every major metropolitan area now has at least one, and I think if climbing were to get some kind of national attention, there would a place for people to go and do it, which wasn’t the case 10 years ago.
I totally agree that on the marketing/media end things could get much better,. Again, many people are far under paid or are simply volunteering their time because they care and want to see the sport grown. Even if you could get 10,000 people to come watch, unless you are outside, there isn’t a gym in the country that could even think about holding half that many people.
This is a really complex issue, but at the heart of it is the lack of money in the industry, the downturn in the economy, and the general lack of interest from the public. I think growth will and can continue, but it will be slow and with the help of organizations like USA Climbing, who focus a good deal of resources on the kids.
Setting is like being an umpire. When your job is done correctly, no one notices. And it seems like people are looking for something to go wrong and blame the setters generally. The setters I worked with this weekend were professional, eager to work hard, and took far more care and interest in the most of the details of the problems than most outsiders can imagine. It wasn’t a perfect event, they never are, but the vibe was awesome and like Alex Johnson said to me last night “It’s the most fun I have had at a comp in a long time”

By: B3

B3 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:05:10 +0000

I would say Paul Robinson, Magnus Mitboe, Kyle Owen would be up there.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:57:59 +0000

Jamie, Gabor made the point about zone scoring, which gives people no incentive to climb past the bonus hold if they weren’t going to make it to the top. That seems to indicate his getting the second highest point on Men’s 4 is meaningless in terms of determining strength or route reading ability. Nevermind his excitement about being the second highest person on #4, which contradicts his point.

BTW, do you have an opinion on who is the ‘strongest’ in terms of power when you say that Matt and Rob finished where they did? This is all a bit arbitrary, but I was curious.

By: B3

B3 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:17:16 +0000

@jhedge who writes from Gabor’s blog “‘the setting was very straightforward and didn’t involve any super technical moves. Every single problem was power-based and it made it obvious who would be the winner. This type of setting does not allow other competitors to do well compared to Daniel who is by far the strongest in the field.’
This was dead obvious just from watching a few video clips of the finals. And i’ve never even been to a bouldering comp (done extensive course-setting in gyms and set routes for a several lead comps).”

Again, if this opinion were correct, the second and third place finishers would be the second and third strongest. But that was not the case. Matt Bosley and Rob finished where they did because of their experience and route reading ability, not because of their power. What does the evidence show? Gabor is not the strongest competitor and was admittedly sick, yet still got the second highest point on Men’s 4.

By: jghedge

jghedge — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:45:54 +0000

” What about free-soloing comps? Not just deep-water soloing … but free-soloing. Real danger of people breaking their legs. It would be exhilarating, to say the least, to watch people up and down climb a route while they decipher beta with a real risk of injury.”

Yeah let’s put kids in the hospital. 30 foot ground falls onto bare cement (can’t use pads, otherwise they might not break anything). Brilliant idea.

Let’s use this idiot as the forerunner too – maybe he’ll land on his head and do us all a favor.

By: Steve W

Steve W — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:35:21 +0000

For what it’s worth (great discussion btw JE) I have heard that the future of competition climbing will involve large venues and mainstream sponsors who have the much needed capital to infuse into our beloved sport. I have been privileged to see bouldering world cups in Europe held in large civic centers. In many cases, however, they were as boring to watch as synchronized swimming. The US has the formula, but really needs the capital and venues – we have to get these events out of the local climbing gyms. Good lord, I had to drive 40 minutes away to do the Citizens comp which was so far under the radar, most folks did not even know there was one.

I really like the ideas proposed here concerning “creative route setting” – alternate sequences or even “rabbit trails” would add a lot to the experience and outcome. (e.g. i thought men’s #4 might have had an alternate sequence without having to drop down to the bonus hold).

The arguments that bouldering comps should promote the most well-rounded athlete (somewhat based on the idea that bouldering began in Fontainebleau where bouldering is more technical, ergo bouldering comps should be more technical) ignores the fact that bouldering has evolved into a sport in-and-of-itself and the current evolved state of boulder is about doing the hardest possible moves. Contrast that to the current state of route climbing which is about doing the most possible moves. That said, i do believe that bouldering comps should encompass aspects of “technical” route climbing, as route-climbing should encompass aspects of bouldering. They are intrinsically related, but as we all know, route climbing and bouldering are really two distinct disciplines of rock climbing and they require distinct training regimes – one focusing on endurance and the other on power.

PS: Could somone please solve the problem of waiting for all the problems to be filled with actors at the start of the competition?

By: jghedge

jghedge — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:30:23 +0000

this from gabor’s blog:

“the setting was very straightforward and didn’t involve any super technical moves. Every single problem was power-based and it made it obvious who would be the winner. This type of setting does not allow other competitors to do well compared to Daniel who is by far the strongest in the field.”

This was dead obvious just from watching a few video clips of the finals. And i’ve never even been to a bouldering comp (done extensive course-setting in gyms and set routes for a several lead comps).

My idea is for combined comps. Qualifiers/quarter-finals would be bouldering, 8 moves-12 feet high. Power, but not ridiculous power. You have to use your feet.

Semis/eliminator rounds would be longer, route-like boulder problems in a cave structure, 16-25 moves. Power endurance.

Finals would be 2 routes, 35-50′ long, 40 moves each with 2 tries allowed if needed per route. Endurance. Combined score wins. This would mix it up and give the people with overall skill, not just power, a reason to compete.