This is a good illustration of why "speed" doesn't fit in with the other two.
The winner of the men's speed event came 49th and 61st in the other two, and the people who came 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th didn't even make the top 20 overall.
Meanwhile, Ondra (1st and 6th in lead and boulder) came 47th in speed, and Schubert (2nd and 3rd) came 48th.
> ... the points system was designed to disadvantage the speed climbers.
IOC: You need to include speed whether you like it or not.
IFSC: OK, if we must, but we'll invent a scoring system so that they do badly.
> There is an argument to be made that the points system was designed to disadvantage the speed climbers.
It's designed that people who only do well in one of the three disciplines does not do as well as someone who does well in two of the three disciplines. Anything else would be unfair.
Oh, I don’t know. I’d argue that a scoring system basis on place in speed x place in lead OR boulder might be fairer. That way everyone gets a their specialty plus one they aren’t great at...
“Shauna Coxsey has qualified in 3rd place, putting herself in a strong position for making the top 7 and qualifying for possible Tokyo 2020 Olympic selection if she reaches the Combined final (top 8 from qualifying round.)”
That’s great to hear but it’s mind boggling. She finished third but isn’t guaranteed a place because there are a few more hoops to jump through. Why couldn’t they have a simpler selection system... Anyway , best of luck to Shauna!
I think the Speed result is quite likely to effect who qualifies. Coming 1st in Speed, and last in Boulder and Lead seems quite likely to place you in the top 8 of the Combined (which I believe will be sufficient to qualify for the Olympics, provided that two Japanese climbers qualify).
I've really struggled to find clear information on this, though, so I could well be totally mistaken!
I’ve just done a little spread sheet experiment with the Women’s combined results.
If you replace all the scores with 1 to 20 points comparing the top 20 with just how they did against each other, ignoring all the others that have now been eliminated, the positions change a fair bit from the seeding positions shown on the App. With a lot of the speed climber now out of the equation the new multipliers produce a different result. This should be closer to the next stage results.
Note a Speed climber climbs into 3rd!
1 Garnbret SLO
2 Noguchi JPN
3 Miroslava POL
4 Nonaka JPN
5 Coxsey GBR
6 Ito JPN
7 Krampl SLO
8 Niu CHN
9 Seo KOR
10 Mori JPN
11 Kazbenova UKR
12 Joubert FRA
13 Raboutou USA
14 Pilz AUT
15 Chanourdie FRA
16 Kura JPN
17 Rakovec SLO
18 Yip CAN
19 Klingler SUI
20 Lukan SLO
> Oh, I don’t know. I’d argue that a scoring system basis on place in speed x place in lead OR boulder might be fairer. That way everyone gets a their specialty plus one they aren’t great at...
Any system which doesn't treat all three disciplines the same could not possibly be considered fair. This proposal allows speed specialists to count their best two disciplines, while people whose worst discipline is speed are forced to count it!