- Location
- Boulder County, CO.
First, the results; a couple of opinions to follow.
Once again, Charlie Wagner will be representing us at the ITCC. He won a very competitive Masters, after winning all events but the throw line. (He accomplished this despite the fact that he was coming back from being sick, and operating on very little sleep after missing a flight and taking a red-eye). For anyone who hasn't seen him compete yet, Charlie is a phenomenal climber. (He used to be a good skier, too, before he became a victim of the snowboard affliction
Runners up were Matt Mayo, from Preservation Tree in Denver, who was very solid all day, and pretty spectacular in the MC; Bill Mattor, from Arbor Works/Swingle in Fort Collins, who also put up a great MC; and former RMC champion (8'th at ITCC, '04), Luke Glines. Luke failed to set a throw line in the Masters, but climbed extremely well this weekend, coming in 2'nd after the 5 preliminary events.
The competition took place over two days this year, with speed events on Friday afternoon, and the other 3 as well as the Masters on Sat. There were 33 climbers. The overall skill level and number of competitive climbers in this chapter have increased by a huge amount in recent years. There were also 4 forty-something guys in the mix, three of whom managed not to embarrass themselves.
One other note: There was a potentially very serious fall during the work climb, though, luckily, no serious injury was suffered. Andy Freise, from Davey Tree, Boulder, had his knot loosen when his handsaw caught it. He was about 35 feet up, and fell about 20-25 feet and landed on his back in the main crotch of the tree. Unbelievably, he stuck around and finished up (he said he felt a little sore). His saw had a lanyard attached to it (to prevent it from falling and causing a DQ.) The lanyard probably played a role in the incident, maybe by wrapping around his rope above his knot. He was climbing on 11 mm, 24 strand rope. This account is all second hand, from talking to him and
other climbers who witnessed the fall.
He drove by and waved this morning on the way to his first job. Aside from being tougher than nails, Andy is a great guy and a great climber and I personally feel very relieved that we’ll be seeing him out and about with his crew.
And, now for the editorial.
We are switching the timing of our TCC to Fall, (to coincide with our annual meeting, and to give the winner more time to prepare for the ITCC). So, the plan is to hold a second Masters Challenge at that time this year, to determine next year's representative at the International. The competitors in that MC will be the top 10 from this year's event, so there was a lot more at stake this weekend than there usually is.
I personally think that this is a bit unfair to a few guys who had to miss the competition, or got DQ'd from an event due to a technicality. They have no shot at this or next year's ITCC, which seems a strong penalty to pay.
But a bigger issue is that there were some very serious problems with the way the competition was run, that may have impacted the results. First, we didn’t receive our rules until moments before the first events began on Friday. Then, the climber meeting came after the first 2 events, and was very short (due to its starting late, and time limits placed on the room we used), and almost no discussion of rule changes occurred. So, anyone wanting to understand the rules had to stay up late to read them, then get up early the next day. To the extent that there were changes in the way events were scored, this was a problem. Competitors didn’t know how to approach the events. Maximum speed? Emphasize innovation and poise?
Also, the judges apparently didn’t know the scoring rules, either. I say this because the results of the work climb participants were posted almost immediately upon their finishing the climb. This is, of course, necessarily inaccurate, since all scores are dependent on the time of the fastest competitor, who climbed after most of the others.
Again, I am only raising this because two Masters Challenges ride on the results. I have no agenda with regard to any particular climber left out, since two of my practice buddies ended up in the top 10, and therefore stand to lose out on the opportunity to be in October’s MC if a whole new competition is held.
Of course, it takes a lot of time, money and effort to put on a full competition, and there may not be the same reservoir of these available to put on a second one. Hopefully, though, this can change, and anyone who wants can have a shot at Hawaii.
Once again, Charlie Wagner will be representing us at the ITCC. He won a very competitive Masters, after winning all events but the throw line. (He accomplished this despite the fact that he was coming back from being sick, and operating on very little sleep after missing a flight and taking a red-eye). For anyone who hasn't seen him compete yet, Charlie is a phenomenal climber. (He used to be a good skier, too, before he became a victim of the snowboard affliction
Runners up were Matt Mayo, from Preservation Tree in Denver, who was very solid all day, and pretty spectacular in the MC; Bill Mattor, from Arbor Works/Swingle in Fort Collins, who also put up a great MC; and former RMC champion (8'th at ITCC, '04), Luke Glines. Luke failed to set a throw line in the Masters, but climbed extremely well this weekend, coming in 2'nd after the 5 preliminary events.
The competition took place over two days this year, with speed events on Friday afternoon, and the other 3 as well as the Masters on Sat. There were 33 climbers. The overall skill level and number of competitive climbers in this chapter have increased by a huge amount in recent years. There were also 4 forty-something guys in the mix, three of whom managed not to embarrass themselves.
One other note: There was a potentially very serious fall during the work climb, though, luckily, no serious injury was suffered. Andy Freise, from Davey Tree, Boulder, had his knot loosen when his handsaw caught it. He was about 35 feet up, and fell about 20-25 feet and landed on his back in the main crotch of the tree. Unbelievably, he stuck around and finished up (he said he felt a little sore). His saw had a lanyard attached to it (to prevent it from falling and causing a DQ.) The lanyard probably played a role in the incident, maybe by wrapping around his rope above his knot. He was climbing on 11 mm, 24 strand rope. This account is all second hand, from talking to him and
other climbers who witnessed the fall.
He drove by and waved this morning on the way to his first job. Aside from being tougher than nails, Andy is a great guy and a great climber and I personally feel very relieved that we’ll be seeing him out and about with his crew.
And, now for the editorial.
We are switching the timing of our TCC to Fall, (to coincide with our annual meeting, and to give the winner more time to prepare for the ITCC). So, the plan is to hold a second Masters Challenge at that time this year, to determine next year's representative at the International. The competitors in that MC will be the top 10 from this year's event, so there was a lot more at stake this weekend than there usually is.
I personally think that this is a bit unfair to a few guys who had to miss the competition, or got DQ'd from an event due to a technicality. They have no shot at this or next year's ITCC, which seems a strong penalty to pay.
But a bigger issue is that there were some very serious problems with the way the competition was run, that may have impacted the results. First, we didn’t receive our rules until moments before the first events began on Friday. Then, the climber meeting came after the first 2 events, and was very short (due to its starting late, and time limits placed on the room we used), and almost no discussion of rule changes occurred. So, anyone wanting to understand the rules had to stay up late to read them, then get up early the next day. To the extent that there were changes in the way events were scored, this was a problem. Competitors didn’t know how to approach the events. Maximum speed? Emphasize innovation and poise?
Also, the judges apparently didn’t know the scoring rules, either. I say this because the results of the work climb participants were posted almost immediately upon their finishing the climb. This is, of course, necessarily inaccurate, since all scores are dependent on the time of the fastest competitor, who climbed after most of the others.
Again, I am only raising this because two Masters Challenges ride on the results. I have no agenda with regard to any particular climber left out, since two of my practice buddies ended up in the top 10, and therefore stand to lose out on the opportunity to be in October’s MC if a whole new competition is held.
Of course, it takes a lot of time, money and effort to put on a full competition, and there may not be the same reservoir of these available to put on a second one. Hopefully, though, this can change, and anyone who wants can have a shot at Hawaii.
