In reply to john arran:
> I think it was a good attempt at improving the scoring, but still was not clear enough.
> What I really liked, and think is absolutely necessary, is the combining of all tops/zones/attempts into one single score, with the winner being the climber with the highest score.
> What I didn't like was the 110 point max per problem - doesn't seem intuitive. Also the 10 points given for free seemed, er, pointless
> Anyone care to explain why 100 points for a flash wouldn't make more sense?
Hi John,
It may well make more sense - 100 for a flash, 400 for a perfect score. It was the first time this scoring system had been used, and there was apparently a lot of debate and discussion before choosing the one used, and we judges were asked to provide feedback and thoughts - if it can be improved / made clearer, then no problem. The extra 10 points were "attempt points2 - each attempt beyond the first one cost you a point, the idea being to bring another element of strategy into play. Not perfect, but it was certainly not detrimental to what was a pretty good event - obviously would have been better with spectators, but in the current circumstances, i reckon the organisers should be feeling quite proud of how it all went.