Flash Format so far...

[sgclimb]

As part of our work process, SCA would like to seek the thoughts and suggestions of both competitors and organisers regarding the FLASH Format so far. We appreciate your feedback, and hope it can help us refine the FLASH format to make it even better.

Some questions -
1. Do you prefer the FLASH format or the Rotation format? (Applicable to Novice only)
2. Do you think FLASH format should be implemented for Intermediate and Open category too?
3. Any feedback on what's good and bad about the FLASH format?
4. Any suggestions on how we can improve it?

We will like to thank you for your feedback, and in return, SCA will select a random reply and award the poster with a 1 month season pass to Climb Asia.

[jacjac]

Having taken part in the flash format for Gravical, Boulderactive and NSSCC(not very applicable here) this year, I've felt that it has certainly benefited both the competitors and organisers in the reduction of waiting time. The Novice category(always the largest number of participants) event has been able to complete more efficiently with the implementation of the flash format.

However, that said, I have some qualms about the flash format. Personally, I would rather be isolated and compete in the rotation format. Firstly, the flash format competition scene gives me the feel of the bouldering walls having some Great Singapore Sale, with climbers scrambling to clock the most Tops in the least number of tries. I feel that the 1 minute limit given for each climb really kills the whole climbing process. Climbers tend to rush through the routes, with most, if not all, powering through to get to the top. Sure, some might have managed to reach the top, but the flash format, or rather, the novice category event, somehow cultivates the beginner climbers to develop a habit of "hecking and powering" through the routes. Isn't it quite ironic that the flash format tries to fulfill the objective of opening opportunities for other climbers to watch and learn from the more seasoned climbers yet in the process itself, it kind of defeats the purpose because what the audience or other competitors who would be watching are the climbers in that particular detail rushing through their climbs in order not to overshot the 1 minute cap?

Nevertheless, though I really appreciate the lesser waiting/isolation time with the flash format in place, I don't see myself looking forward to another round of flash format again for Pumpfest due to the messy atmosphere. It affects the mindset quite a bit and with all the cheering and yelling from every direction, it only serves to distract me from focusing on the climb.
It's hard to find a compromise to reduce isolation time with the rotation format, so I guess we have to choose one format and stick to it.

As for whether the flash format should be implemented for the Inter & open category, I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. Can you imagine if we have all the good climbers in one detail and they are all climbing at the same time, and we as audience have to watch all this action at the same time, it'd be terrible.

If there are more pros than cons with the implementation of the flash format for the Novice category(that would lead to the permanent implementation of flash format for future Novice categories), I feel that the one thing that can be improved would be the time limit (1 min) given for each climb. If it is increased to maybe 2 min, climbers wouldn't then feel the need to rush through the climbs, which would be much better.
Other than that, the flash format has allowed for more technical moves on the routes which would differentiate the good from the better climbers, so I think this would enable the beginner climbers to push themselves beyond and execute moves that they have never been able to do so during trainings - which is a good thing as we are able to raise the climbing standard intricately through this format in Singapore.

The above are just representative of my personal opinions and feelings as a competitor.

Cheers
Jacinda

[sgclimb]

Hi Jacinda,

Thanks for the feedback.
Sorry to hear that the Flash format isn't your thing. SCA, as a supporter of climbing and competitions, has backed this format as most importantly, it does not waste the time of climbers.

Here are several points I feel justify the use of the Flash format.
1. There were 165 Novice Men competitors in Boulderactive, and that would translate to 8hr 33min waiting time (assuming 3min rotation) for the 165th climber. i assure you no one wants to be that guy.
2. The ordeal is also shared by the organisers who have to provide judges who can't move away from their position for the same amount of time.
3. Space is a problem. Finding space to accommodate 165 Novice Men, and 70+ Novice Women is no joke. Plus the need to maintain isolation discipline by assigning isolation ic to escort climbers to the loo. It's a waste of manpower.
4. Previously, to accommodate so many climbers, the novice event were held concurrent, and 4 problems had to be squeezed between 3 faces, with a resulting dihedral problem that is rather contrived. It can also result in safety issues.
5. Previously climbers in Novice have a total climbing time of 12 mins, and 9mins of rest. Now they have 19mins of total climbing time.
6. Spectator fatigue. 8hrs of the same problems over and over does not make for exciting viewing. The Flash format has a more consistent energy level throughout.
----------------------

I believe one of your main gripe is the 1min time limit for problems. I disagree with you about climbers having to rush through their climb. Rather, I feel that climbers are often too hesitant about making their moves. Especially when they have bridged and are in a stable position.

Bouldering, unlike difficulty events, has a predominant focus on power and movement. 1 min to climb a 3-8 move problem is more than sufficient.

And if we do adopt the Flash format for Intermediate and Open, rest assured that there'll be seeding. We wouldn't be putting Beatrix, SueAnn, Shuang'Ee, Suzanna, Doris, Judith and other strong girls in the same detail.

---------------------

I have to say, those are my thoughts from an organiser point of view. I wholly appreciate your views, and i hope more climbers can voice out their thoughts about the Flash format, because it was crafted with them in mind in the first place!

I'll put up a poll on sgclimb.com after Rockmaster, rumors has it that it'll be rotation format for all categories. Think it'll be a fairer gauge to have a contrasting format to measure against.

ben

[Winson]

Hi Ben,

I agree with you that Flash Format is by far the best solution and in my opinion, the pros definitely outweighs the cons. However, I do believe that the format can be tweaked slightly to achieve better experience for the climbers and/or the spectators. From the feedbacks I gathered from my juniors in Novice categories, sadly, none of them liked the Flash Format and would gladly voluteered to be the last few climbers in the rotation system.

>>I believe one of your main gripe is the 1min time limit for problems. I disagree with you about climbers having to rush through their climb. Rather, I feel that climbers are often too hesitant about making their moves. Especially when they have bridged and are in a stable position.

According to them, the time (1 min) for certain routes are too short. One of them was even denied 2 tops in one comp as she finished the route shortly after the time is up, therefore did not qualify for the finals. I do not totally agree about the climbers being too hesitant. Some of them simply climbs at a slower pace. For example, Ponti climbs really slow and is certain to give the crowd a big heat attack if he is reaching the last tile with 2 secs left. Some routes are meant to be climbed slowly and some climbers climb really slow no matter the style of the route (Ponti included).

Perhaps we can give different timing to different route. For example, a dynamic route will only have 45secs while a balancy route will have 1min 15secs.

So, I feel that before we find a better system than flash format, we should stick to it for Novice category but with some tweaks. However, I do not see a need to have it for the other categories unless we start having 100 participants for each category. Else, our Intermediate and Open women category will be over in 20-40mins time. Also, the spectators will have a hard time trying to track their favourite climbers. Like what we saw in Novice category, we cant really get a good view of the action as the competitors tend to crowd around the wall thus blocking the view of the spectators behind. And when the area is too small to contain a large number of spectators, it would be extremely hard to move from wall 1 to wall 6 and back to wall 2 with the climber you are following. Imagine 50 or more spectators trying to follow Ponti or Beatrix yet having no idea which wall they are approaching.

In conclusion, I feel that we should tweak the system a little for the Novice category but keep the Flash format for the benefits of the climbing community as a whole but stay with the rotation format for Intermediate and Open category.

[sgclimb]

Hi Winson,

Even climbers from NTU didn't like it?

Hmmm, I guess a major review should be done after Pumpfest.

As for whether the timing is too short, there were many climbers who finished the route in the time allocated. Just as we emphasize more on efficiency, endurance and technique for difficulty climbing, the focus for bouldering is power, dynamism and precision. I feel that the argument that the timing is too short only stands if most of the climbers were not able to finish the routes with the time allocated. Climbers who climbs slow were not being unfairly penalised, as the same rule applies to all.

One direction our sport is moving in, is becoming more spectator friendly. Difficulty routes are to be set with very little rest points, and emphasis has shifted to having continuous and fluid movement.

For bouldering, it has moved on to being representative of bouldering on natural rocks - ie. powerful, dynamic, precise. There is very little opportunities for climbers to hang around to decide their next move.

Also, what you suggested is administratively hard to implement. How do we decide the amount of time to allocate to any particular problem? There are too many things that can possibly go wrong when judging, and this suggested solution may add more complications than solve the issue at hand.

-----------------

1. One way may be to change our route-setting style such that only powerful, continuous problems are set, and set less balancey problems. But even then, that means taking away a whole style of climbing that will only impoverish our competition.

2. How about 10 seconds more? Will that help? It may be possible to implement this for Pumpfest.

[Winson]

Hi Ben,

>> One direction our sport is moving in, is becoming more spectator friendly. Difficulty routes are to be set with very little rest points, and emphasis has shifted to having continuous and fluid movement.

I agree with you on this. But then again, I don't think many of our Novice climbers will be able to produce continuous and fluid movements under the pressure of time. From what I observed, it tends to be less spectator friendly as the climbers are often very stressed and lock and over grip on almost every move. Especially with so much on the line (Place in final, JC bouldering League)

>>For bouldering, it has moved on to being representative of bouldering on natural rocks - ie. powerful, dynamic, precise. There is very little opportunities for climbers to hang around to decide their next move.

Again, I agree with this as well. But on certain moves, its better to do it slowly. For example, changing leg on the slab with no handholds. Would you prefer to take your time to shift your weight and change leg or hop off and change leg and pray that your feet will stick.

>> Also, what you suggested is administratively hard to implement. How do we decide the amount of time to allocate to any particular problem? There are too many things that can possibly go wrong when judging, and this suggested solution may add more complications than solve the issue at hand.

I would suggest the route setters already pre-determine the time that should be given for that particular route and have it printed out on a piece of paper that say "Novice Women Route 1 (45secs)" or "Novice Men Route 4 (1m 15sec)". This only requires less than 10mins in total for printing and putting up of the papers during route setting. I can't think of any complication since the time is already stated clearly for everyone to see.

---------------
>> 1. One way may be to change our route-setting style such that only powerful, continuous problems are set, and set less balancey problems. But even then, that means taking away a whole style of climbing that will only impoverish our competition.

2. How about 10 seconds more? Will that help? It may be possible to implement this for Pumpfest.

1) I hope this does not happen. It would be a step back rather than forward. With the trend of compression routes in World Cups, this would put our up and coming climbers to a big disadvantage if they can't balance on routes. Its a vicious cycle: No balancey route = no need train balance= poor balance.

2) If we add 10 secs across the board, it would bring us back to the problem of hesitant climbers. Imagine someone hesitating on a dyno/jump or more specifically a route that only requires 30-45 secs since there is so much time. Or worse, chalking up for 15secs on the jug before the dyno.. It might or might not happen, but why leave it to chance?