Southern Chapter TCC

For anyone who missed out by one point or one second, let me share 'the rest of the story'

My flight back to Denver was at 9:45 from Atlanta. I left Birmingham early enough to have about two hours to get the car returned change clothes and have a bite to eat. That early lead time went away when I got to the contstruction traffic jam at the state line. When I cleared the one lane I put my foot in the fuel injectors and raced to the airport. I got to the kiosk to get my ticket...one minute too late to check my luggage. I got on the plane, just barely, but my bags were still in ATL. After spending close to four hours on the phone talking to 20, I started counting at #5, people from Delta I found that the only way to get my luggage was to ship it to me. The story goes on and I should see my luggage next week when I go to ATL to look for an apartment.

Moral of the story...it isn;t just in the comps that one unit will keep you from winning.

Check out the picture:

See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil...
 

Attachments

  • 45469-SCTCC3monkeyssc.webp
    45469-SCTCC3monkeyssc.webp
    62.8 KB · Views: 92
[ QUOTE ]
hey i watched all of the masters climbers (yes i was in 5th place by .032 of a point!!!!!!!) and i think that the judges had it completely bass akwards!



[/ QUOTE ] /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Too bad you arent a judge
 
Hello Kathy,

There were no women climbing this year, which was unfortunate. Colleen Hoffman usually competes, but I don't know where she was this year. Good luck to you at ITCC!
 
guess that i need to re state my former comment.....i'm not complaining about the job that the judges did.... i think that they did great(exept for not dudecting for no FS), but i was calling for a change in the rules. and if i were a judge, i would take off points for not protecting the trees.


I came in 5th very fairly (stupid throwball!!!!!) so i am not upset for myself. i just need to train more!


Rob
 
First off I'd like to say that I also thought Ary won it. I went first and got to see all of the climbs. It was as much of a suprise to me as it was to all of you. I spoke with some of the judges afterwards and they said it was all about the fluidity of my climb. Most of the points in the masters are from when the climber leaves the ground until he touches down. I did in fact assess the tree... my words were, "The tree doesn't appear to have any problems, I'm starting my ascent. Or something to that effect. Also a friction saver is only a minimal part of the scoring. If we as arborists were really concerned about the minimal damage induced by rope friction then we wouldn't have the competition at all. Think about all the bark removed from the tread of 25 climbers' boots in the six selected trees. Just something to consider. Also, I want to reiterate that I thought Ary had the best climb. There is one problem though, I wasn't a judge. In the past I have been very sour towards judges for decisions they have made. I have come to learn that there will always be disagreements. I don't think there will ever come a time when every single climber is satisfied with every aspect of the comp. And we shouldn't be. We should constantly strive to improve our competition and our level of professionalism to make the Southern Chapter the best in the world...
 
Thanks for the kind words Matt. I promise you all I am training outside of work, weights and running. I want to make the Southern Chapter proud. I am also working on new techniques. That is one reason I didn't do anything fancy this time, I might know the techniques but I don't frequently use them. I will be practicing many different approaches, ie floating false crotches and single line ascents, but if I'm not comfortable with them I won't use them. I'm excited to represent our chapter and look forward to learning a lot. Congrats Matt. Congrats to everyone.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Would you be complaining if you were first? Gimmie a break

[/ QUOTE ]


Kind of my point....

I said the winner wasnt complaining, but those who didnt win seem to have the notion they should have won.
Sad to see the TCCs become soooo competetive, it should be about fun, learning, and networking, but evryone is so hell bent on being the best. What are you trying to prove? and who are you trying to prove it to?
 
Thats cool, I didnt mean to come across rudely with you or anyone for that matter. But here weve had our fair share of problems with our TCC, and this thread just seemed so reminisant(sp?)of that.
 
I was one of the judges in the Masters so I won't comment on the standings. But, I also agree with Tom and Chris that constructive comments and criticism can be helpful, so I'd like to add a few things.

1)--Just so everyone knows, there were five judges in this Masters. The high and low scores for each climber were thrown out and the middle three scores were averaged.

2)--Judging can be difficult. One year I was helping Mark C. with a TCC traning class and Mark and I were judges for the Masters. Tech help was limited so we were adding our own scores before submitting the score sheets for the numbers to be entered into the computer. After several climbers had gone through the event Mark approaced me and said that he had a problem. His numeric scoring showed that the last climber had the highest score, but by watching the climbers he thought that one of the earlier contestants should have placed highest.

Mark has probably competed in more TCC's than almost any other tree climber, yet his numeric judging didn't correspond with his visual impression of the climbers.

3)--Matt Hodges wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing is that the Aerial Rescue scenario was not in accordance with the new 2006 rules, which caused me problems. I have a clear understanding of the new rules, and competetors work very hard to comply with updates to rules. We expect the same from the judges. The new rules state that the climber WILL CONTACT 911 upon entering the event. The event was run under the old scenario with the EMT already en route.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was the tech in the tree for the AR and Matt is right. The scenario (which is guided by the head judge of the event) seemed to follow the old rules and this caused a problem for a few people. This should have been dicussed and clarified in the walk-through and/or the pre-comp meeting. The requirement for backing up an ascender was also a new rule. This requirement (and the requirement about backing up any floating false crotch with a marling spike) was discussed ad nauseum --at gear inspection, at the judges' meeting, at the climbers' meeting, and during the event walk through. But this worked. Everyone had a backup for a FFC, and only one person had to be reminded to use the marling spike.


4)--Matt Hodges wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I was not allowed to leave the ground in the AR because I didn't have half hitches tied in the tails of my blake's backed Kong (weapon) setup. A climber from another group left the ground without the half hitches, same setup, no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too noticed this, but sometimes mistakes happen. It caused about a 15 second delay, but who was more at fault, you for not tying the backup knots, or the judge for not noticing that someone else didn't tie them?

5)--In the above quote the knots that needed to be tied in the tails of the Blake's were overhand knots (or figure eight knots, or double overhand knots), not half hitches. Also, the Kong setup was a type of floating false crotch, but it wasn't a 'weapon'. The 'Secret Weapon' is a split tail that has a ring attached to each end. The split tail is used to tie a friction hitch on the (doubled or single) ascent line and is another type of floating false crotch. This isn't meant to pick on Matt, but just to point out how easily things can be misconstrued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom