Masters Challenge

[tod_k]

There is one rule I dissagree with. That would be the scoring for rope entry. I feel a higher rope instalation should be worth more points even if it takes more tries. I feel it is safer because you have less exposure to a fall because you are not advancing your rope.

 

[NickfromWI]

Not necessary. A higher rope installation will generally give you better performance as you're going through the tree. A person could concievably perform well with a lower TIP, though it'd be odd. They should not be punished because they have a different climbing style.

love
nick

 

[tod_k]

Nick, lets say we use the same tie in point, you hit the lowest target first try, total of 11 points. Then continue to the tie in point. I hit the tie in point on my 5th. try. I think I would recieve 7 points.

 

[Mark Chisholm]

That's interesting Todd. I agree that a tie-in target on the 5th throw would be better than the 3 pt. on the first throw. But you would hope that the judges would think like Nick and give more bonus points and such to the higher achiever than the low climber.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

If you look in the next box on the MC score sheet you'll see a place for scoring "Suitability of access" or something like that. When I've judged the MC I use this place to reward or penalize the climber for the choice of access system and TIP. If the "perfect" TIP could be accessed using a Big Shot to punch the throwline through the branches but the climbers chooses to handthrow into a low limb, then advance the line, I consider a penalty. They might not get gigged but it is considered. No different if the person were to use a monkey fist from the ground and not a throwline. I'd rather, in general, pay a little more in wages for the climber to get to the "perfect" TIP instead of paying them to advance in the tree.

Tom

 

[judge]

your quite right about the the amount of points scored, but there is 15 more points to be had on access into the tree and set up. i'm sure that most judges would awardmore points to the climber who footlocks to the TIP than branch rolls up from the bottom!

 

[Babberney]

[ QUOTE ]
There is one rule I dissagree with. That would be the scoring for rope entry. I feel a higher rope instalation should be worth more points even if it takes more tries. I feel it is safer because you have less exposure to a fall because you are not advancing your rope.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a contest, this is probably true, but in the real world you trade risk for risk: you tie in fewer times, but you have to climb on branches you haven't inspected thoroughly. The contest trees have been checked out already, but in daily climbing there is a legitimate argument to be made for starting low and advancing through the tree so you can see what you are getting into. I'm not saying I do this every time, but I see the argument and, in some trees, the necessity.

Keith

 

[Babberney]

[ QUOTE ]
That's interesting Todd. I agree that a tie-in target on the 5th throw would be better than the 3 pt. on the first throw. But you would hope that the judges would think like Nick and give more bonus points and such to the higher achiever than the low climber.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all have days when we hit what we were not aiming for. If I take my first throw and make it work, isn't that worth something as well? I can re-install my rope pretty well from a tree, so why should I waste time throwing at a higher target? Isn't this akin to rewarding style over substance?

My point is not that I agree/disagree 100% with the current rules, but that a well-executed climb should be highly rewarded, regardless of where it starts. I guess I'm biased, though, since I consider myself a better climber than thrower.

keith

 

[Mark Chisholm]

Keith,

I'm not in disagreement with you. I would think that a higher target is better than the lowest target for that segment of the climb. It would be hard to win from the lowest target.

[ QUOTE ]
a well-executed climb should be highly rewarded, regardless of where it starts

[/ QUOTE ]

A great climber will always do a great climb, but at the International level, I feel that if I make a mistake and another climber doesn't, I shouldn't win. If we all make mistakes, then it becomes a judges nightmare to decide which mistakes were more "bad luck" than bad decisions.

 

[Babberney]

[ QUOTE ]


A great climber will always do a great climb, but at the International level, I feel that if I make a mistake and another climber doesn't, I shouldn't win. If we all make mistakes, then it becomes a judges nightmare to decide which mistakes were more "bad luck" than bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so if I design a plan that deliberately starts lower and ascends to the best tie-in as part of the plan is as good as one that deliberately throws to the top TIP? Or are we always assuming it is a mistake not to throw directly to the primary TIP? Certainly the scoring system would seem to favor the latter position, but I still think it could be just as valid to take the climb in stages. Maybe every judge will always see a climb that starts at the top as better, but was it really necessary to codify this in the scores?

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse; I really would like to hear your continuing thoughts on this.

keith

 

[Babberney]

[ QUOTE ]
If the "perfect" TIP could be accessed using a Big Shot to punch the throwline through the branches but the climbers chooses to handthrow into a low limb, then advance the line, I consider a penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of hints at the same argument I'm making with Mark in the other posts:

Is there only one "perfect" TIP? Maybe the highest, most central TIP allows me to hit every station, but I'd be able to get at the weight station better from a secondary TIP that then gives me easy access to the primary. Why not make an easy throw work instead of pulling out a big shot that then has to be protected from damage and put away later (especially relevant at the contest, since you can't have your ground guy get it out of the way while you work the tree).

Maybe all judges will still see the best climb as the one where the climber can throw straight into a 90-foot crotch and go, but I want to believe if it's done well it could be just as fast and effective either way. I have yet to prove that, of course. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

keith

 

[Mark Chisholm]

Your point is valid Keith. I guess that what I see is a climber who does the climb in what appears to be the most flawless and efficient manner available. This usual means a climb that doesn't take 15 minutes to tie in or a climb that looks as though it was a "I'll settle for this" type of climb. Does that make sense?

I'm not saying that you have to shoot to the highest point. I've seen great climbs (winning climbs) that used two tie-ins that were both lower than available to run the tree. The difference was (to me) that they didn't settle, they went for that plan.