UKC

Looks like a winner to me…

“The scoring system of the Paris 2024 format will be based on performance, with the final score of each athlete being the sum of the points collected in the two phases of the event. The maximum total score is 200 points, evenly distributed between Boulder and Lead.

The main principles of the two phases are as follows:

1. Boulder scoring:

The maximum score of the Boulder phase is 100;

There will be four boulders in each round, all featuring two zones and one top;

The maximum score of each problem is 25 points – athletes will earn 3 points by securing the first zone, then move to 6 points if they secure the second zone, and claim the full 25 points if they secure the top;

1 point will be deducted for each fall while attempting to top.

2. Lead scoring:

The maximum score of the Lead phase is 100;

There will be one Lead route per round, and only the final 30 moves of each route will award points;

Counting back from the top of the route, the last 15 moves will earn the athlete 5 points each, the previous 10 moves will earn the athlete 2 points each, and the previous five moves will earn the athlete 1 point each;

Any moves prior to the last 30 will earn the athlete 0 points.”

https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/660-new-ifsc-world-cup-event-i...

Four boulders is great news, three was obviously a big issue for both athletes and setters.

Anyone spotted anything not immediately obviously that could have a quirky impact on the result?

I’d initially read, “1 point will be deducted for each fall while attempting to top” as 25 for a flash and 24 for second go etc. but I wonder if it means that if you are sitting on 6 point for second zone, six further unsuccessful attempts at the top will effectively erase the points you’ve won!? I’m not a fan of anything that discourages further attempts.

I had thought there may have been a small bonus for clipping the chains but it looks like falling while trying to clip the chains will score the same as topping…

It may be that clipping the chains is the last move.

In general, first impressions of the scoring system are positive. At last it gives a points total that doesn't depend on how well or badly other climbers fare, which has always been the biggest drawback with previous scoring systems.

The lead scoring in particular, reminds me of the  system we came up with back in 1997 for the first ever youth climbing series (called BRYCS at the time).

That would make sense.

What’s your take on the possibility of having points deducted for failed boulder attempts? Seems a bit mad, though it would certainly add an extra tactical element.

It is very BRYCS like....

Its going to be a bit difficult to explain to the viewing public though - the current system of being awared 35 for getting to hold 35 is ultra clear to all.

And what happened to the "+" for moving from a hold........they could end up with a good few ties without the + to separate.

it will attract tactics, but there are tactics at play currently as attempts are taken into account under the current system, although not as obviously as deducting a point. Still, it all becomes irrelevant if Janja wins both disciplines.......

Yeah, this does seem to be how it reads and it does seem a bit weird - I guess it might not make a difference in practice (realistically, most climbers are going to try to go for the top, aren't they?) but it seems weird to penalize people for trying and failing rather than just giving up...

I haven't read anything in more detail, but I'd be amazed if it didn't simply mean that points are deducted from the top-out score for each failure on that problem, so only if a climber ends up succeeding. Wouldn't make any sense at all otherwise.

What are the time limits?

And specifically, have they reverted to the "you've started, so you can finish (your attempt)" for the bouldering? It created extra entertainment watching as the poor buggers were as desperate to stay on as to top out 😂

Flashing a boulder has to somehow be better than topping it after multiple attempts. I suppose the obvious alternative would be extra points for a flash

A lot of unknowns so far but having already discussed it with a few others it looks a bit of a nightmare for live commentary and written reports!

How so? My first though was that with every zone and lead hold having a score attached it will be obvious what competitors need to do to improve their final racking...

e.g."With a 13 point deficit from the bouldering round, Adam need to get three moves further than Tomoa in lead..." (assuming Tomoa has climb as far the last fifteen holds on his lead burn)

Yer I think it could work quite well as long as lead comes after bouldering. Bouldering commentary can just focus on topping the boulders / getting zones, in as few attempts as possible, and the exact points score won't actually matter to the viewer, like when you watch any but the last Heptathlon event. Then during the lead round it should be much clearer what people need to do than at Tokyo and without the potential for seemingly unfair results.

I think it would be a mistake though if they made a big deal of the bouldering scoring system in commentary.

With the bouldering scoring so weighted for tops I can’t see a problem with referring to the scoring. I think it will quickly be obvious that a top equals a significant chunk of points and going to lead with something approaching 100 points will make you a medal contender and the points from zones are really just tie-breakers.

I think I’d have given 0.5 points for the old “+” but I can see why you might want to eliminate the appeals that plus’s must generate.

I am not so convinced, assuming the 1 point per attempt bouldering deducted is only if you top then there are no ways to lose points, you can only gain.

Then lead is in effect broken into zones - no score zone then 1 point for each hold in the lowest scoring zone, then a 2 point zone and 5 point zone - so easy to know how far someone needs to get to score a certain score.

Seems fairly predictable and explainable unless I have missed something.

It is incredibly frustrating that the IFSC seems to have been able to come up with a scoring system seemingly about a million times better than the one used at the Olympics just 6ish months after the event, but were unable to come up with anything better than position multiplication for the preceding 4 years.

Like John says I assume the points will only be deducted for attempts if you top rather than for the zones, would be a bit rubbish otherwise (so don't count it out...). We frequently see >=6 attempts on boulders, so removing a point per attempt from the zone points would seem to make the zones basically irrelevant, which is presumably not the desired effect.

On a similar note, I'd prefer if you lost 3 points after the flash go, then 2 after second go, then 1 thereafter. I.e. Flash = 25 points, 2nd go = 22 points, 3rd go = 20 points, 4th = 19, 5th = 18 etc.

Lead scoring seems like a good idea, I'd have thought replacing the + with half a score would work, so if you're in the final few moves and get a + you get 2.5 points from it. The + obviously exists for a good reason, that moving off a hold is significantly better than just latching it and doing nothing, would be a shame to lose that nuance.

It seems like they've done a good job of setting out a reasonable looking framework for a more heptathlon-esque scoring system (at least within each comp, scoring across comps being impossible really), which I imagine they'll tweak in the future.

8a.nu are reporting it as 0.1 deduction per attempt and seeing the scorecard from the recent french demo of the new scoring system this seems right but obviously when the new rulebook is published all will be clear.

It makes a lot more sense as it prevents the discouraging tops scenario discussed in the thread.

Can only really judge on the new scoring after watching the format being run in real time but on the face of it seems a step forward.

A 0.1 deduction seems ludicrous… Only 1 point difference between a flash and ten tries! That can’t be right.

To be fair, although the Tokyo system was largely incomprehensible, it did give the speed climbers a fair crack at a medal. It’s only in the absence of speed that something more basic is possible.

I assume non decimal scores are for the main scoring system (25 for the top, 3 for Z1 and 6 for Z2) and then the decimals would be to seperate who has topped so I think this works as it will still split climbers apart with a final scoring system that is more universally understood.

It remains to be seen how it works in a live format and how the scores translate across two disciplines to produce a winner that is clear and undisputed.

As always, unintended consequences pointed out above through tactics or even more pressure on setters will make or break the new format.

​​​​

Yes, I can see how a 0.1 deduction will work as a tie-breaker but I still think a 1 point deduction (at least) per attempt (with no deductions from zones points) would be better. I don’t think a 0.1 deduction allows the boulderer to build enough of a buffer going into lead. Four flashes should get you a significant buffer over someone who gets four tops in 16 tries. Certainly more than one move in lead.

Having a 1 point deduction does have its perks as you have pointed out to a degree. As others have pointed out in the thread a 1 point deduction could quickly mean that there is little value in a climber continuing to give a go in a comp on a problem once the deductions mean they cannot achieve more than the 6 point second bonus. If coordination blocs come back in vogue then you could easily see this happening.

The 0.1 deduction means that there is always in the time allowed a massive incentive to top so the whole comp will see climbers giving it full beans as the rewards are massive compared to tactically giving up to save energy for the next problem. For the viewer, I think this is great! For the athletes... well let's see but let's hope they aren't all wrapped in tape by the finals! 😂

For those at the top end who theoretically would top all 4 blocs then the 0.1 deduction would still split them in a comp.

What remains to be seen is how it would work across two disciplines and gives a result that works fairly across boulder and lead but excited to see how it works in Munich.