UKC

Shauna Coxsey has qualified in 1st place for finals on Tuesday after the Combined qualification round. In an exciting twist, due to the fact that Japan has 4 athletes qualified for the Combined final but can only take 2 Olympic spots, all 4 athletes from other countries in the final plus the 9th place competitor are guaranteed an Olympic ticket for consideration by their National Olympic Committee. Shauna has qualified in 1st place for the Combined final after placing 14th in Speed, 1st in Boulder and 3rd in Lead.

Read more

Brilliant stuff. To finish ahead of Janja in the Difficulty comp surely must have impressed even Shauna herself!

It is interesting that she would have dropped to third place with the second and third placed climbers each moving up a place if the scoring had been addditive rather than multiplicative. This seems very arbitrary. What is the rationale behind the multiplicative system? A brief play with the maths suggests that it tends to favour less consistency when two climbers' placings have the same additive score, so is the idea to favour climbers with one particularly strong discipline even if another is a bit weak?

It seems to me that additive would have been a better way to do this.  As it is, the winner is almost certain to be be someone who's brilliant in one discipline and so-so in the other two, instead of someone who's pretty good in all three.

Having said that - thinking out loud -  I'm considering this as if all three scores are independent.  I wonder if actually boulder and lead scores are relatively well correlated, and speed is less well correlated with the other two?

reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, I think it is exactly designed to ensure that whoever does well overall will have done well in at least one of the disciplines.  If the scoring was additive then there would be the possibility of someone doing averagely in each discipline then doing well overall. I personally think the former is how it should be. 

In my view the overall champion should be someone who has got top 3 in at least one discipline and probably has finished pretty high in two (if not all three) disciplines.  If the overall champion was someone who had just finished mid-ranking in each discipline then this would not, in my view, represent someone who is excelling enough to merit being champion.

So using multiplication of scores heavily places emphasis on high ranking places but allows one discipline to be not great.  Additive would not place so much emphasis on high ranking places.

The alternative would be to use an additive method but where there is some scaling on the score per place (so not just 1,2,3,... but maybe 1, 5, 10, 20,...) to heavily bias high places.

Isn't that effectively the system used in Formula 1?

In reply:

Well done Shauna

Typical of UKC posters to argue what 'should have been' in such a way (I think no speed might have been the biggest preference!). I prefer it, as it benefits 2 format specialists more (esp. in  the most common type: bouldering and lead). One of the biggest factors for this Olympics might well be avoiding injury, especially in the speed event where many are just getting started.

Pretty sure the multiplicative system will have been carried over from the difficulty qualifiers as first used in the EYC, where two qualifier finish positions are combined to determine qualifying rank.

The persuasive part of the logic behind it is that the difference between first and second should be far greater than the difference between, say, 19th and 20th.

Following up on my post above.  Take the case of the top 20 qualification just run with two examples:

Someone who finishes 1st in one discipline, 3rd in another and 20th in the final discipline

vs

Some who finishes 8th in each discipline

Based on additive scoring they both achieve 24 points.  Based on multiplication the first gets 60 points and the second gets 512.  I personally think someone who has got a first and third and therefore excelled in two disciplines merits a higher score than someone who ranks (just above) average across the board.

Anyway, the bottom line is the scoring system was decided some time ago and everyone knows what it is.  I agree that boulder and lead ability are probably much more closely matched that speed (and my view is speed should never have been combined with lead and boulder).  The main thing is that climbing is in the Olympics irrespective of the scoring (which with 3 disciplines was probably never going to be perfect).

Given that Japan has a 'free' spot due to being home nation for the Olympics, doesn't Pilz qualify too in 10th? As Japan effectively only gets to use 1 spot from normal qualifications routes... Or am I confused?

The “free” Japanese spot would have only come into play had the not managed to qualify anyone by ranking from the qualification comps so was never likely to be needed. I’m kinda assuming the they qualify a male tomorrow.

The really big advantage in multiplying is fewer ties.

Seems like it has worked quite well in the female.  Expected names are there plus the polish speed girl. Seems like a reasonable result.

Are you sure? That would imply only 19 in Olympics not 20.. seems weird that they wouldn't have a set number? 

For what it's worth, I just looked on 8a and Jens seems to think same as me..

The host place does have to be filled and it can't be taken by an extra athlete of the same nationality if two have already qualified through the other pathways, so it goes to the next best ranked athlete in Hachioji of another nationality.

If Japan chooses not to select the 2nd best Japanese athlete from Hachioji and prefers to wait until 2020 to decide and use their host place, then Jessy will be selected as the next highest ranked climber in 10th. 

If they decide to take the two WCH places then Jessy will be selected through the host place as the next highest ranked climber in 10th. 

Basically, Jessy will be selected in the next few weeks as the NOC has two weeks to decide on their selection and then unused quotas will be reallocated. 

I didn't want to include Jessy in the list until all confirmed. Graeme/Charlie, am I right?

Gotcha, nice one!

The qualifying rounds were first rate,  exciting the whole way through and the suspense just kept increasing as the climbers came out through the lead event.

It’s going to get messy if Japan do that but you can understand the temptation to try to get a fit Miho to the Olympics...

I’m in more doubt now. I may or may not have be lead astray by reading possibly inaccurate interpretations of the rules. I had been under the impression the unused host spot would become another ioc wildcard keeping the total at 20.

Found a qualification document on the IFSC website which says:

Unused Host Country Place(s) will be reallocated to the next highest placed athlete, not yet qualified, in the Combined World Championships 2019 in Tokyo, respecting the maximum quota per gender per NOC.

So that suggests Natalie is correct.

https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/images/World_Competitions/FINAL_-_2019-02-01_...

“The Host Country is guaranteed one (1) male and one (1) female athlete, on the condition that the athletes meet the eligibility requirements described under section C of this document and that the athletes participate in at least in one (1) of the events mentioned in section D “Qualification Pathway” of this document.”

I’m sure I read/heard an interpretation of the above that suggested the “guarantee” was only a fall back position in the event of the no Japanese making selection from the Pathway events.I accept it may be bollocks.

Edit: From Charlie’s Article...

”

4) Host Country Places

1 climber per gender will qualify this way.

Japan, as host country of the 2020 Olympics, is guaranteed 1 climber per gender. In the highly likely event that 2 Japanese climbers per gender have qualified anyway, this unused Host Country Place would go to the next highest placed climber in the Combined World Championships in Hachioji 2019 who is not yet qualified (and doesn't come from a country with 2 climbers already qualified). If 2 Japanese climbers qualify through Hachioji, Toulouse or the Asian Championship, they won't get a 3rd climber under the Host Country system; there will be a maximum 2 Japanese climbers per gender regardless of how they are selected.”

Which proves that you're wrong

At a real risk of garnering a record number of dislikes, I have to say I thought having the speed event part of it improved the qualifications as a competition/spectacle (even though I think speed is a bit pants), especially when combined (no pun intended) with the multiplication factor.  Without it I suspect it would have been somewhat predictable/boring. 

I disagree (probably as many do) not just because the speed is less exciting to watch but because you aren't seeing the athletes at their most competitive. Boulder / Lead are well aligned so you are seeing the top athletes really go to the wire. Ok, Janja is dominating in Women's, but it isn't a given with the likes of Seo and Mori challenging her in lead, and Coxsey, Noguchi in bouldering.

In Speed it's a case of who's least crap, which takes away from the other performances. It's like taking the 100m Olympic final and getting them all to do 10km, or long jump. It will still be impressive and better than any mortal could do, but you aren't watching them at their most competitive. You will also get potentially 2-3 speed specialist who just can't compete in the other 2 disciplines and so have no chance at a medal (or will the qualification pathway mean they don't even get a spot?).

Well done Shauna!

I agree the scoring is weird.

Fantastic effort!  Well done Shauna, so pleased to see it all happening for her!

Absolutely loving this performance from Shauna.

A rules/points question: what happens if multiplied points are level at the end? e.g. if Janja wins the lead and Shauna is 2nd they'll both have 12 points

Does it go straight to qualification countback or is there something like the most discipline wins to decide?

Shauna doing really well. Did she set a new British record in the final round? She almost got a top on W2 as well.

W3 maybe a bit too difficult..

Does anyone know what sort of grade Aleksandra climbs? It’s interesting to watch her on the start of the boulders. Not looking forward to being worried about her at the start of the lead comp..

Head to head in each discipline, then countback to the previous round.

Thank you.