This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Shauna in first is no surprise but Sierra Blair Coyle qualified in joint 3rd, ahead of a whole bunch of the world's best.
Michaela qualified in seventh place ahead of Janja Garnbret, Fanny Gibert, Petra Klingler, Anna Stöhr and Sol Sa. Fantastic effort.
Nathan Philips and Ty Landman also made it through, so 4 Brits in tomorrow's semi-final is not bad for the impecunious Team GB.
Apparently many athletes were suffering from some kind of bug.
Results overview:
youtube.com/watch?v=4L9FLvWZ5So& (6m)
Shauna making all the problems look easy:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BTeRCy_g41O/
Michaela qualified in seventh place ahead of Janja Garnbret, Fanny Gibert, Petra Klingler, Anna Stöhr and Sol Sa. Fantastic effort.
Nathan Philips and Ty Landman also made it through, so 4 Brits in tomorrow's semi-final is not bad for the impecunious Team GB.
Apparently many athletes were suffering from some kind of bug.
Results overview:
youtube.com/watch?v=4L9FLvWZ5So& (6m)
Shauna making all the problems look easy:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BTeRCy_g41O/
3
In reply to stp:
Sierra has been posting a lot of videos of her training on Instagram recently. She's been going at it hard. Good to see its paying off for her
Sierra has been posting a lot of videos of her training on Instagram recently. She's been going at it hard. Good to see its paying off for her
6
In reply to stp:
Possible return to form by Megan M too, after a very strong 2016 but weak showings in the US Nationals and the first two World Cup rounds
Possible return to form by Megan M too, after a very strong 2016 but weak showings in the US Nationals and the first two World Cup rounds
In reply to galpinos:
After watching the semis I got the impression that it was a hard set and conditions got worse towards the end in the high heat. I bet Shauna was relieved to qualify with only one top. So (eg) Sierra and Megan struggling at the same stage isn't surprising.
Edit: in fact Shauna was the only one of the top 8 women's qualifiers (bearing in mind they come out for the semis in reverse order) who subsequently made it through to the final.
After watching the semis I got the impression that it was a hard set and conditions got worse towards the end in the high heat. I bet Shauna was relieved to qualify with only one top. So (eg) Sierra and Megan struggling at the same stage isn't surprising.
Edit: in fact Shauna was the only one of the top 8 women's qualifiers (bearing in mind they come out for the semis in reverse order) who subsequently made it through to the final.
Post edited at 10:56
1
In reply to stp:
Another great win for Shauna, somewhat tarnished by hardly being able to see any of the crucial women's attempts due to the camera being trained almost exclusively on the men's event. Someone really needs to have a word with the sexist video director.
Another great win for Shauna, somewhat tarnished by hardly being able to see any of the crucial women's attempts due to the camera being trained almost exclusively on the men's event. Someone really needs to have a word with the sexist video director.
9
In reply to john arran:
Agreed. Wasn't sure it was going to be her day as Janja started very strongly but I guess if you too them all.......
As they had grouped the men's and women's problems for each round next to each other, you'd have thought it would be easy to get both on shot at any one time! Pretty poor do......
> Another great win for Shauna,
Agreed. Wasn't sure it was going to be her day as Janja started very strongly but I guess if you too them all.......
> somewhat tarnished by hardly being able to see any of the crucial women's attempts due to the camera being trained almost exclusively on the men's event. Someone really needs to have a word with the sexist video director.
As they had grouped the men's and women's problems for each round next to each other, you'd have thought it would be easy to get both on shot at any one time! Pretty poor do......
2
In reply to galpinos:
The camera work was even worse in the semis, you could hardly see some of the problems. They made pointed reference to the fact that they were getting the pictures from Chinese TV rather than having their own set-up several times. I guess this is the IFSC saying "if you aren't going to pay for the footage then we'll minimise what we spend on it."
The camera work was even worse in the semis, you could hardly see some of the problems. They made pointed reference to the fact that they were getting the pictures from Chinese TV rather than having their own set-up several times. I guess this is the IFSC saying "if you aren't going to pay for the footage then we'll minimise what we spend on it."
Post edited at 21:54
In reply to Si dH:
Nope, IFSC spent the same as normal, the webcast crew were all there in Nanjing. The Chinese TV crew with lots more very expensive cameras etc and a very big crew provided the pictures. The director was Chinese.
Similar things have happened in the past, notably in Innsbruck and Munich (BTW last year's Munich live stream failure was purely the fault of the network provider rather than anything to do with the TV crews).
The Chinese crew also filmed qualifiers which will have gone out somewhere in China.
> The camera work was even worse in the semis, you could hardly see some of the problems. They made pointed reference to the fact that they were getting the pictures from Chinese TV rather than having their own set-up several times. I guess this is the IFSC saying "if you aren't going to pay for the footage then we'll minimise what we spend on it."
Nope, IFSC spent the same as normal, the webcast crew were all there in Nanjing. The Chinese TV crew with lots more very expensive cameras etc and a very big crew provided the pictures. The director was Chinese.
Similar things have happened in the past, notably in Innsbruck and Munich (BTW last year's Munich live stream failure was purely the fault of the network provider rather than anything to do with the TV crews).
The Chinese crew also filmed qualifiers which will have gone out somewhere in China.
1
In reply to Si dH:
I think the coverage is alright. Yes, it could be better at times, but it's not bad. I pay to watch motorcycle racing (BSB, MotoGP and WSBK) and the coverage of that is good, but the free IFSC coverage isn't a million miles behind that.
This is the first year I have watched IFSC comps and it's really exciting.
I think the coverage is alright. Yes, it could be better at times, but it's not bad. I pay to watch motorcycle racing (BSB, MotoGP and WSBK) and the coverage of that is good, but the free IFSC coverage isn't a million miles behind that.
This is the first year I have watched IFSC comps and it's really exciting.
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Saw your piece to camera about the 4min rule on Facebook.
Like practically everyone, I still think this is a backwards step.
When an Olympic gold is at stake, you are going to have to tighten up the timing of the in control match.
I can see the appeals from coaches along the lines of... 0.5sec of the winner's 3sec match was outside the time period.
Also, I'm not convinced the friendly beta sharing observation period will survive into a time when an athlete's and their national federation funding hinges on an Olympic medal being secured.
Saw your piece to camera about the 4min rule on Facebook.
Like practically everyone, I still think this is a backwards step.
When an Olympic gold is at stake, you are going to have to tighten up the timing of the in control match.
I can see the appeals from coaches along the lines of... 0.5sec of the winner's 3sec match was outside the time period.
Also, I'm not convinced the friendly beta sharing observation period will survive into a time when an athlete's and their national federation funding hinges on an Olympic medal being secured.
4
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Well, it was pretty awful in the semi finals. There was only one problem (W1) that we got to see a decent angle on, most of it was way too zoomed-in. The commentators also couldn't see all of the problems (talk about poor set-up...) resulting in an inability to help viewers out with the scoring when the normal scoring system wasn't working. Perhaps someone should have given the Chinese some training beforehand.
The previous two events (filmed by IFSC I think?) were pretty good.
Well, it was pretty awful in the semi finals. There was only one problem (W1) that we got to see a decent angle on, most of it was way too zoomed-in. The commentators also couldn't see all of the problems (talk about poor set-up...) resulting in an inability to help viewers out with the scoring when the normal scoring system wasn't working. Perhaps someone should have given the Chinese some training beforehand.
The previous two events (filmed by IFSC I think?) were pretty good.
In reply to JLS:
I'm fairly neutral about the 4 minute rule, I think there were a couple of instances yesterday where it did make things more exciting, but it really spoilt the end of the one where the timing failed - I felt really sorry for the Japanese woman climbing then. As long as they can make their clocks reliable, I think it's worth taking stock after at least this world cup season, rather than giving the new rule no chance.
I agree the need to tighten things up, but it would be fairly easy to set that rule as "you must put two hands simultaneously on the finishing hold before the time runs out, and you must maintain that hold for at least 3 seconds before letting go, it being immaterial whether the time runs out during the 3 seconds."
More importantly in my view to help make things fairer, someone needs to find a solution to the overall schedule that prevents people nearer the beginning or end of a round from suffering far worse conditions when in hot locations.
> Saw your piece to camera about the 4min rule on Facebook.Like practically everyone, I still think this is a backwards step.When an Olympic gold is at stake, you are going to have to tighten up the timing of the in control match.I can see the appeals from coaches along the lines of... 0.5sec of the winner's 3sec match was outside the time period.Also, I'm not convinced the friendly beta sharing observation period will survive into a time when an athlete's and their national federation funding hinges on an Olympic medal being secured.
I'm fairly neutral about the 4 minute rule, I think there were a couple of instances yesterday where it did make things more exciting, but it really spoilt the end of the one where the timing failed - I felt really sorry for the Japanese woman climbing then. As long as they can make their clocks reliable, I think it's worth taking stock after at least this world cup season, rather than giving the new rule no chance.
I agree the need to tighten things up, but it would be fairly easy to set that rule as "you must put two hands simultaneously on the finishing hold before the time runs out, and you must maintain that hold for at least 3 seconds before letting go, it being immaterial whether the time runs out during the 3 seconds."
More importantly in my view to help make things fairer, someone needs to find a solution to the overall schedule that prevents people nearer the beginning or end of a round from suffering far worse conditions when in hot locations.
Post edited at 07:42
1
In reply to Si dH & JLS:
Where has 3 seconds suddenly appeared from. There is no 3 second rule, there never has been!
An attempt is complete when the athlete has both hands on the finish hold (in control) and the judge says okay.
I will pass the feedback regarding the filming on to the IFSC media people, we don't get to see it during the events as we are busy doing other stuff.
The timing problem for Mei was human error, nothing more, nothing less.
The 4 vs 4+ debate will rumble on I am sure but can you imagine how long Jain would have been on that last move if it was still 4+. Hours, if not days
Also on the 4/4+, if we were still 4+ then I think Keita on P1 would have been less exciting, once he had got established out left the Top was inevitable. The race against the clock made it exciting.
Where has 3 seconds suddenly appeared from. There is no 3 second rule, there never has been!
An attempt is complete when the athlete has both hands on the finish hold (in control) and the judge says okay.
I will pass the feedback regarding the filming on to the IFSC media people, we don't get to see it during the events as we are busy doing other stuff.
The timing problem for Mei was human error, nothing more, nothing less.
The 4 vs 4+ debate will rumble on I am sure but can you imagine how long Jain would have been on that last move if it was still 4+. Hours, if not days
Also on the 4/4+, if we were still 4+ then I think Keita on P1 would have been less exciting, once he had got established out left the Top was inevitable. The race against the clock made it exciting.
In reply to Si dH:
Definitely, if you match the top at 3:59 you should get the top!
> I agree the need to tighten things up, but it would be fairly easy to set that rule as "you must put two hands simultaneously on the finishing hold before the time runs out, and you must maintain that hold for at least 3 seconds before letting go, it being immaterial whether the time runs out during the 3 seconds.
Definitely, if you match the top at 3:59 you should get the top!
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
If you match the top (in control) then you get the top as it stands, and you always have done. This 3 second stuff is a red herring that someone has suddenly invented.
If you match the top (in control) then you get the top as it stands, and you always have done. This 3 second stuff is a red herring that someone has suddenly invented.
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Thanks Graeme. The 3 second discussion was raised by the commentators in the final. They said the climbers were supposed to hold the finish for 3 seconds to prove they were fully in control, but that realistically if they had clearly been in control and not done this, then it was very unlikely a judge would refuse to give them the top.
There was later a twitter question read out asking whether the 3 seconds had to be up before the 4 minutes (just as this event had occurred and the top given - I can't remember the climber) and Alannah said that (I paraphrase) in principle it should be.
I guess there must have been some misunderstanding, but I got the impression it must be some new guidance given to climbers, since Alannah Yip was talking about it.
> Where has 3 seconds suddenly appeared from. There is no 3 second rule, there never has been!An attempt is complete when the athlete has both hands on the finish hold (in control) and the judge says okay.
Thanks Graeme. The 3 second discussion was raised by the commentators in the final. They said the climbers were supposed to hold the finish for 3 seconds to prove they were fully in control, but that realistically if they had clearly been in control and not done this, then it was very unlikely a judge would refuse to give them the top.
There was later a twitter question read out asking whether the 3 seconds had to be up before the 4 minutes (just as this event had occurred and the top given - I can't remember the climber) and Alannah said that (I paraphrase) in principle it should be.
I guess there must have been some misunderstanding, but I got the impression it must be some new guidance given to climbers, since Alannah Yip was talking about it.
Post edited at 08:35
In reply to Si dH:
Okay, thanks Si. I will talk to Charlie and tell him (and whoever his co-commentator is next weekend) not to talk about 3 seconds, as there has never been guidance about how long the finish hold needs to be held for!
Okay, thanks Si. I will talk to Charlie and tell him (and whoever his co-commentator is next weekend) not to talk about 3 seconds, as there has never been guidance about how long the finish hold needs to be held for!
3
In reply to Si dH:
The local walls around here (Bavaria) commonly use three seconds as a rule of thumb for deciding if you have "controlled" the hold in self-scored local comps where there is no judge to make the decision for you. I guess if that's common elsewhere too it might lead to the misconception that it's in the IFSC rules.
The local walls around here (Bavaria) commonly use three seconds as a rule of thumb for deciding if you have "controlled" the hold in self-scored local comps where there is no judge to make the decision for you. I guess if that's common elsewhere too it might lead to the misconception that it's in the IFSC rules.
Post edited at 09:18
1
1
In reply to Si dH:
I wonder if anyone has actually noticed that the IFSC has managed to find a solution to the problem of live streaming from China
And whether anyone would like to say that "good job IFSC"
In answer to your point about conditions I guess no one actually realised that we delayed female quals by about 5 hours to prevent them all from being boiled alive - we started after dark.
Outdoor comps are always going to have differing conditions when a round can last up to 6 hours, I can't see any solution other than saying no outdoor comps.
I wonder if anyone has actually noticed that the IFSC has managed to find a solution to the problem of live streaming from China
And whether anyone would like to say that "good job IFSC"
In answer to your point about conditions I guess no one actually realised that we delayed female quals by about 5 hours to prevent them all from being boiled alive - we started after dark.
Outdoor comps are always going to have differing conditions when a round can last up to 6 hours, I can't see any solution other than saying no outdoor comps.
3
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Yes, actually, I did notice that. Good job IFSC.
Also thought Andrzej Mecherzynski in the semis was he best co-commentator ever by a mile, so well done Andrzej and well done IFSC for inviting him.
Anybody who was paying attention during the semis realised it, since it was mentioned several times.
A less transparent roof?
> I wonder if anyone has actually noticed that the IFSC has managed to find a solution to the problem of live streaming from China And whether anyone would like to say that "good job IFSC"
Yes, actually, I did notice that. Good job IFSC.
Also thought Andrzej Mecherzynski in the semis was he best co-commentator ever by a mile, so well done Andrzej and well done IFSC for inviting him.
> In answer to your point about conditions I guess no one actually realised that we delayed female quals by about 5 hours to prevent them all from being boiled alive - we started after dark.
Anybody who was paying attention during the semis realised it, since it was mentioned several times.
> Outdoor comps are always going to have differing conditions when a round can last up to 6 hours, I can't see any solution other than saying no outdoor comps.
A less transparent roof?
1
In reply to AlanLittle:
Your local WC venue can be quite hot as well and that has a transparent route.
I didn't here Andrzej and can't watch the replay as I am still in China but I am not surprised that he was good. His is a very thoughtful, articulate and intelligent guy. As an aside his knowledge and interest of British politics is amazing - we've had quite a few long chats about a wide range of things over the years!
> A less transparent roof?
Your local WC venue can be quite hot as well and that has a transparent route.
I didn't here Andrzej and can't watch the replay as I am still in China but I am not surprised that he was good. His is a very thoughtful, articulate and intelligent guy. As an aside his knowledge and interest of British politics is amazing - we've had quite a few long chats about a wide range of things over the years!
In reply to AlanLittle:
Okay, I didn't realise that as don't get to see/listen to the stream
> Anybody who was paying attention during the semis realised it, since it was mentioned several times.
Okay, I didn't realise that as don't get to see/listen to the stream
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
True, but that one's an officially listed piece of important architectural history so can't be messed with.
Sadly I'm rarely around in August these days, we usually spend our summer holiday visiting family in .uk so haven't made it to the event for a while.
> Your local WC venue can be quite hot as well and that has a transparent roof
True, but that one's an officially listed piece of important architectural history so can't be messed with.
Sadly I'm rarely around in August these days, we usually spend our summer holiday visiting family in .uk so haven't made it to the event for a while.
Post edited at 10:07
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
http://www.bigassfans.com/product/industrial/mobile-fans/
> Outdoor comps are always going to have differing conditions when a round can last up to 6 hours, I can't see any solution other than saying no outdoor comps.
http://www.bigassfans.com/product/industrial/mobile-fans/
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
http://www.parcelforce.com/
or
https://www.hss.com/hire/c/cooling/cooling-fans ??
Can't imagine there's nowhere to hire industrial cooling fans in the countries the events are held
And a judge's time-keeping/scoring pack given to each of them wouldn't go amiss either
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Casio-CA53W-1-Black-Calculator-Retro/dp/B000GB1R7S
https://www.printed4you.co.uk/striper?gclid=COK-s625ztMCFQEL0wodd_kM-A
http://www.parcelforce.com/
or
https://www.hss.com/hire/c/cooling/cooling-fans ??
Can't imagine there's nowhere to hire industrial cooling fans in the countries the events are held
And a judge's time-keeping/scoring pack given to each of them wouldn't go amiss either
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Casio-CA53W-1-Black-Calculator-Retro/dp/B000GB1R7S
https://www.printed4you.co.uk/striper?gclid=COK-s625ztMCFQEL0wodd_kM-A
Post edited at 11:08
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...