women with no competition

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that as long as a female climber competes and is able to complete all of the events she should be given equal support from the chapter.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how it is in Illinois.
If a female competitor competes in all 5 preliminary events, she goes to the ITCC and the IL Chapter pays for it.
 
completes or competes? I guess she earned a DQ in footlock because it took her over a minute, but she got there.

I do not mean to knock the Michigan chapter for this at all. I just feel like there needs to be clarification from ISA about the bar that is set. I do agree that there needs to be some kind of standard. Having to have competitors makes it extremely difficult in a chapter that has had only two female competitors in the last ten years.
 
When we thrashed this out in MN we went through trying to figure out a way to set a threshold. Just saying that someone has to 'compete' in each event doesn't mean anything. Just to make sure that we weren't going to have to deal with someone who 'competed' by walking into the ring and not even tieing in or tossing a line we decided to come up with a generous handicap. From what I know there has never been a single woman competitor in MN, there has been none or two so there has been competition.
 
I am a female competitor from the MW chapter and think the IL chapter has a solid policy. If you look at the results of the men and women at ITCCs even with the 2 minutes extra in aerial rescue and work climb, women still time out at a higher rate than men. And, at the ITCC we get zero points in throw line more than the men. So, to say that at the chapter level women have to complete and score points in every event may seem logical if you are considering how men fare in the competition, but it is significantly more challenging for women.


Also, take a look at how N American women score at the ITCC compared to elsewhere in the world. Generally speaking there is a definine trend that N American women are clumped with the lower scores. If we want better N American female competitors I don't think limiting who we send to ITCC will help though exposing more women to the ITCC might.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just saying that someone has to 'compete' in each event doesn't mean anything. Just to make sure that we weren't going to have to deal with someone who 'competed' by walking into the ring and not even tieing in or tossing a line we decided to come up with a generous handicap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kevin (Treebing), "competes" is what I meant to say.

Tom D., we haven't had this matter come up in IL. Is that a concern in MN? or in any other Chapter? In IL, we have legitimate female competitors who are out there to WIN.
 
in 2005, when i had taken a year off competing to train for something else, we had one woman competitor. she did not complete all events. she had no desire to go to ITCC, but she did help herself to the generous award package made available by the chapter for the winner of each division - except the plane ticket. i thought that was wrong, and it created some bad feelings in the chapter. i think there was a saddle, a saw, a new rope, etc. i think every other woman who has won our chapter has gone to internationals, with the financial backing of the chapter.

seems to me that if a woman wins the chapter comp, DQs or no DQs, and has the stones to say she will go to ITCC she should receive the exact same backing as the male competitor - if fundraising has fallen short, then the available funds should be split evenly. from where i sit, it's a pretty damn small investment for an organization as big as a chapter to make to fund a woman climber once a year, in the name of addressing the, ahhh, disproportionate ratio of male to female climbers.

not that anyone asked me. ok, off soapbox now.
 
As MTCC Chair for 2010 - I value everyone's opinions! Unfortunately, I have no control over the rules that were posted for 2009. I have considered everyone's suggestions on this topic of posting and am approaching the Board of Directors of the Michigan ISA Chapter to change the rules for 2010.
 
Here in New Zealand, I think that our Chapter treats the women climbers better than the men! That attitude has paid off too, with NZ producing two female world champs (Chrissy Spence and Elena O'Neill), and the current world record holder for the footlock. The Chapters need to support the women climbers for them to improve, and for the field of competitors to increase. That said, there should be a level of competence that must be achieved by the climber before she can be sent to the ITCC. At St. Louis there was a female climber who, given her level of ability, shouldn't have been there. It was dangerous, and she had a near accident in two events, including a painful slip and swing. In those cases, maybe the Chapter could invest what would have been their ITCC expense money into getting the climber coaching instead - then their confidence wouldn't be shot, and they would have (hopefully) improved enough to compete the following year. Support these women, and you will get future champs...
 
Tom, with your formula, would it work like this?

so in the Charlotte comp last year abram got 137 in the prelims. Joesephine hedger got 172. That averages to 154.

So if only one climber competes next year they have to

score 111. So scoring 111 is pretty difficult.

I dont think that formula would be fair. Or do I have it wrong?

Im only using Charlotte as an example of scores. So if there was only one competitor and she scores a 60, She didnt hit the magic 111, would her score be listed as the top womens score for the person to try to beat next year? If so the magic number would be 72 which still means you have to score decently in every event. The winner of Ohio this year had a score of 85 or something. Would he not be able to compete if he were competing the year after Joe and Abe?

What if there are three female climbers and none of them hit the magic 111. What then.

the Scores of climbing competitions have little to do with a persons competence in the field of treework. At every event I've been to. If I look at the bottom of the score sheet there are climbers that I know rock it out every day at work and have been for years and years. I would ask them for advice on tree work over many of the perennial champions. I came in second my first real year of production tree work. I absolutely was not someone you would have wanted to ask to remove a hazardous tree. Looking at scores does not always reflect how someone safely works through a tree.

I think that a person should be able to go if they prove they can get from A to B in every event safely. Regardless of speed. She times out whatever... can she make it to the ground safely and unclip? Even if she does not make the bell in the footlock... can she put on an eight and descend like a tree person does? Once there is a precedent set of sending female climbers it will motivate others.
 
Let me try to recollect the formula that we used.

Here's the scenario:

In 2009 the Women ITCC scored 150 and the Men ITCC scored 200. That gives a ratio of 0.75 At the chapter level we figured that reducing that ratio by, say, 30% or something, leaving the chapter ratio at 0.525.

So, now, at the 2010 chapter comp the man's score was 150. The women would have to score at least 78.75 in order to have the chapter pay her way to the ITCC. She would still be the 2010 chapter champion no matter what the score.

Does that make sense?

At the time the chapter treasury wasn't deep and it was the goal of the TCC committee to run the event as self-supporting.

This whole process took almost a year of work and lots of discussion. It was voted in by the chapter exec committee in the end but I doubt that it's ever even been needed.

Before coming up with this ratio it would be possible for a women to register and then not give any effort to complete any of the events. Then, the chapter would be obligated to send her to the ITCC. Would this be fair to the chapter? Could this ever happen? Who knows...probably not, but being prepared is better than being ambushed.
 
Seems like the rule was set at that time (at the 2009 competition date,by that board and committee). May have been unforatuate (or should I say was very), but it was the rule. Hopefully things change for the better. I like the idea of a minimum. If you go to the ASM web site, and look at the scores, (Kevin you know you are one of my favorite peoples...) but there is no score for either the footlock or throw line. I can understand the throw line being a by pass perhaps... but I personally think that there should be a minimum requirement - and that it should start 2010. What's done is done. Starlet did a wonderful job for her first year, and I am sure this year will be even better!!! I whole heartly support women climbers, and want to see more, BUT lets move forward together! It's a new group now, time for change.
 
I think a minimum is fine. Starlet is ok with not going to Chicago. Maybe there should be a standard set by the ITCC. An across the board standard. How many chapters have women compete at all? (Starlet didn't score at the footlock because it took her over a minute. she did ring that bell though and is the fastest female footlocker in michigan.

the three contestant rule seems hard to overcome. But I see a scenario under Toms Porcentage where you have three female contestants, none with the requisite score and so no one gets to continue on to the next round, again.

that would suck if there are three competitors but no one gets to go.

Starlets score in 2009 was 75 after zeroeing on footlock and throwline.
 
i think some of you guys just don't get it how hard it is for women to even show up as competitors in some cases. we are at a disadvantage, just by virtue of being in the minority. no peers, everything geared toward the majority (male climbers), fighting uphill in an industry of men who are not uniformly interested in our progress and in some cases biased against us. seems rather paranoid to me, this making of rules to avoid being taken advantage of. again, we're not talking about that much money here.

i'm pretty sure this issue will be addressed by ITCC folk this year. in the meanwhile, let me say again: my first comp i was the only woman - my footlock took 60+ seconds, i think i DQd in throwline, my AR was fairly lame, and the next year i won the damn world title! give us a chance to show what we can do for godsake. the point of the competition is to improve safety and efficiency in work practices. the point, really, is education and safety. why are we trying to limit people at all? for a $500 plane ticket? really??
 
Just wondering how many other regions might have similar rules that those regions aren't being slammed right now (and IF it is possibly could be changed, why it's being beat to death here)? Also curious, if this question was addressed dirctly to the ASM in an orderly discussion before it was slammed all over the Buzz?? I beleive we have people in the ASM right now that ARE finally women friendly, this string is just turning women away... so very, very, very sad.
 
That wasn't my intention at all and deepest apologies if thats the way it is taken. Neither myself or Starlet is angry or turned off. I just wanted to see what the protocol is nationally. I think this has turned into a good thread because these questions do need to be addressed not just in Michigan but in other regions too.
The skill level at ITCC for females is lacking and it is so rare to see female climbers anywhere, not just in Michigan. I would really like to see more woman tree workers. This work is way too macho generally speaking. My opinion is that there needs to be affirmitive action set in place to encourage growth. I think the buzz is a good place to discuss it because it serves people all over the country and there is instant dialogue. I have the utmost respect for ASM and everybody involved. I know how hard people work. If anything I feel that the ITCC should be responsible for setting the guidelines for their competitors, not the chapters.

This thread was inteneded to ask a technical question about rules and regs. What I have discovered is that it is very vague and there is no set rule on the subject. Like "if you drop a glove in the work climb you will be DQ'd, or _you do not attend a mandatory meeting you will be DQ'd. those are clear cut rules in the rule book. there should be a rule about how to handle one competitor and minimum score etc set by the ITCC.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think this has turned into a good thread because these questions do need to be addressed not just in Michigan but in other regions too [ QUOTE ]


agreed, an excellent forum for discussion (s'posed to be a forum, right?)

[ QUOTE ]
The skill level at ITCC for females is lacking[ QUOTE ]


wow. totally disagree - there are excellent female climbers representing many chapters now. the way to help the rest of the women representing at ITCC to be better climbers is for some of you guys (and treebing, pretty sure you're one of them) who would like to see more women climbers to step up and spend some time mentoring the women climbers currently in your chapter.

i am not referring to any individuals or particular chapters. this is me trying to brainstorm with my community about how to advance a cause near and dear to my heart. just so you know..
k.
 
All I know, is that at any competition I have ever been to, and it has been quite a few, many in Michigan, many in various locations in the South, and at least one ITCC... I have never seen a male climber do anything but encourage, cheer, support, show ideas and tricks to the ladies of the trees, and treat them with the utmost respect. They have always shown them the same great comradeship that I have sooo very admired amongst the people of the trees.
 
I guess I should say the FIELD of skilled climbers is lacking. I have seen some amazingly skilled women climbers at the ITCC, but the field is very small relative to the mens side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom