Live Blogging Coverage Of 2011 ABS 12 National Bouldering Championships Finals

Live Blogging Coverage Of 2011 ABS 12 National Bouldering Championships Finals

Alright, let’s do this.  Check back here around 7:45 MST where I’ll be live blogging the finals of tonight’s ABS Nationals.  You can, of course, watch the event live as it happens, but for those who can’t watch or want to talk about what you’re seeing then this is the place.

Here is the running order for Finals:

Men’s Running Order Women’s Running Order
  1. Alex Johnson
  2. Matty Hong
  3. Nic Sherman
  4. Zach Lerner
  5. Ian Dory
  6. Kyle Owen
  7. Austin Geiman
  8. Sean McColl

  9. Full Men’s Results

  1. Kasia Pietras
  2. Sasha DiGiliuan
  3. Tiffany Hensley
  4. Francesca Metcalf
  5. Alex Johnson
  6. Angie Payne
  7. Alex Puccio

  8. Full Women’s Results

Posted In: American Bouldering Series, Unified Bouldering Championships Pro Tour

Subscribe

Subscribe to the RSS feed to receive updates, and follow us on Twitter & Facebook

28 Responses to Live Blogging Coverage Of 2011 ABS 12 National Bouldering Championships Finals

  1. ShamusG February 12, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    Awesome drinking game. Take a drink every time Jason Danforth says “absolutely”. I promise you’ll be face down in a puddle of vomit.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. cadaverchris February 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Kinda a surprise that Daniel Woods didn’t make it to finals….

    This is a big opportunity for the rest of the finals field to grab some more national attention.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  3. kat February 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    hey there! do you know if we’re supposed to be able to watch semi finals live? i’m not getting any broadcast from the site.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  4. Zachary February 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    where are the semi-finals results?!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  5. Jamie Chong February 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm #

    Your live blogging will probably be better than the live video feed which royally sucked for semi-finals.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  6. Jamie Chong February 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Why are Matty Hong and Alex Johnson in finals? I thought they take only 6. I guess I understand why Matty is – because of Sean, the Canadian they take 7. But Alex shouldn’t be in there. Even though he tied in semi-finals, Matty beat him in Qualifiers, so by count back, Alex shouldn’t be in there.

    Personally I think there should only ever be 6 in finals, unless there’s a tie for 6th (including count-backs). The fact they take extras to finals if a non-american advances doesn’t really make sense. They can just factor out the non-americans after the comp when it comes to awarding points for the National Ranking.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Jamie Chong February 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

      Whoa whoa whoa. Wait a sec. If they’re taking Alex to finals because he tied with Matty, then why aren’t they taking Magnus? They all tied in semi-finals. So they’re not taking Magnus because he’s non-American? WTF? These rules are ridiculous…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • killerko February 12, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

      Nick Sherman a Columbia beast has made finals as well as Sean

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Jamie Chong February 12, 2011 at 7:15 pm #

        Yeah sorry, I didn’t realize Nick Sherman wasn’t American! Whoops!!

        But then at least Magnus should have advanced cause he tied Matty and Alex and even placed higher than Alex in qualis. That doesn’t really seem fair. 🙁

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  7. Zachary February 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Looks like this is a shake up finals for the males, females, not so much….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  8. Scott February 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Can someone give a rundown of what happened in Semis on the Men’s side? The list of strong comp climbers that DIDN’T make it to finals seems wild (Woods, Kim, Traversi, Mitdboe, etc).

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • jcoop February 12, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

      Would love a recap as well…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  9. Narc February 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    As would I actually since I couldn’t watch semis

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • John February 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

      I can give you a little run down on Woods . . . on his first problem he looked superior, easily getting past a powerful and technical downward “dyno”/handmatch (really more of an opposite deadpoint) that thwarted most of the early climbers (a few got it). Then, he was the first to stick a the next more, a long reach to a bad sloping chip with the right. He was “this” close to flashing the route but fell off going to finish hold. What sucked for him is the the last “bonus” hold was well below all this hard climbing and most of the other stronger climbers got that far so all this effort didn’t put him above. He seemed a bit frazzled on the next attempt and couldn’t stick the long right reach. After, he seemed to be rushed and even more frazzled on the next two problems, and couldn’t get into the groove. On the third, there was some question if he stuck the bonus hold (it was a momentary grab/fall situation). If so, he may have advanced. Apparently the judges said he didn’t and now he’s out of the finals. Too bad, but the “best” down always perform as such. It’s funny in climbing though because whereas in something like tennis, a rival to the “best” can beat him/her, even if he/she is playing as good as possible. In bouldering comps., you can totally beat yourself.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Narc February 12, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

        Thanks for the recap John!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  10. peter February 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    unsure of what this means for american representation at the world cup this year. not to take away from the other incredibly talented climbers on that list, but history suggests that woods can do quite well (particularly for an american male) on the international stage…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  11. John February 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Please please PLEASE, someone make the announcer stop saying “ABSOLUTELY”!!!

    Is he TRYING to sound like a moron?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  12. samuel February 13, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    Alex Johnson (male) was killin’ it.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Chris Neve February 13, 2011 at 1:25 am #

    Not sure what was up with the scoring/ranking but if they were attempting to follow the IFSC standards, they failed miserably on the men side. Several climbers made finals when they shouldn’t bumping others who should have been in. The columns they use for tops, attempts, bonus, etc. are in the wrong order. Should be number of tops, then attempts to tops, number of bonus, attempt to bonus. They have the number of bonus after number of tops and that screws up the ranking.

    So, if the IFSC system was followed, the final eight in finals would be (with their reported rank in ( ):

    1. Sean McColl (1)
    2. Matty Hong (7)
    3. Magnus Mitboe (9)
    4. Alex Johnson (8)
    5. Matt Wilder (15)
    6. Austin Geiman (2)
    7. Daniel Woods (10)
    8. Robert D’Anastasio (11)

    That is four climber who should have beenin finals that weren’t. The four who did make it ans shouldn’t have were:

    Kyle Owen – ranked 3 but should be 9
    Ian Dory – ranked 4 but should be 10
    Zach Lerner – ranked 5 but should be 13
    Nicholas Sherman – ranked 6 but should 16

    Who knows what would have happened if the real final eight were in finals but I would be a little bit miffed if I was one of the climbers left out when they shouldn’t have been…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  14. jeremy February 13, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Chris, you are right about the IFSC system for scoring: http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/2010/10_RLB.pdf
    but USAC announced a while ago that they would use the scoring format they did here:
    http://absnationals.org/08/details/ABS%2012%20OPEN%20Nationals%20Info%20Sheet.pdf
    I think they should have used the IFSC system though…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Herman February 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

      Thanks to the posts of Jeremy and Jamie Chong I finally understand how the selection process worked.

      However in either case the result for the semi finals is WRONG. Magnus should be placed 8th not 9th as he did better in the qualifiers.

      I can understand that you will want at least 6 USA climbers in the finals but I feel that if you can compete you should be allowed to compete as anyone else. and then to bypass Magnus so that the 6th american can make finals seems a bit unfair to him.

      Was this annonced before the comp?

      The fact that Alex johnson Barely made it to the finals and now is the USA champion DOES shows that in the final anything can happen and that this does matter and should be communicated beforehand.

      In reality it doesn’t matter which scoring system you use, as long as the climbers are informed. In the Qualifiers it virtually made no difference. in the Semi’s it made big differences as chris has pointed out.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Chris Neve February 14, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

        Well said, as long as the climbers are informed beforehand on what the system is then everything is fair and square. I still like the IFSC system better because I think the event should be more about sending problems and those attempts then getting a part of the way. But the USA can use whatever system they want at their national championships, it’s their perogative how they decide who their top climbers are for selection to national teams and such.

        However, I wonder if this system will produce climbers with different strengths from what they will need when they attend international events. And with arguably their best comp boulderer (Daniel Woods) not in the finals, will he be selected to represent them this year? I am unfamiliar on how the USA selects their teams but it would be a shame for Daniel to miss the team when he has performed so well for them all these years.

        As for Magnus not making finals only because he is not an American, that is a little tough to swallow on many levels. They should have took him and the next American in the ranking instead of skipping him altogether and I think more than the majority of Americans would agree. But, again, I guess they can – and will – do what they want, it is their event. Might make others consider attending in the future, not that those making these decisions will care.

        I think in Canada the system is the top 6 go to finals – if a non-Canadian is in the top 6, they allow more into finals. However, I don’t think too many non-Canadians come to this event so it may be a moot point. If someone other than a Canadian wins, they are the comp champ and the highest Canadian is the national champion. Seesm fair – a great show for the spectators and valuable comp experience for our Canadians. Win-win.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Herman February 15, 2011 at 4:01 am #

          I don’t agree that the organaisers / USA climbing can do whatever they want. They should think things through, decide whatever they want, publish the rules and then stick to them. In that way everybody knows what to expect.
          If the rules is 6, fine. if the rule is a maximum of 2 non amaricans fine.

          I don’t know what it means to be in the american team, with regards to funding etcetera. I do know that the number of places for worldcups are virtually unlimited. See 7.3 of this document http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/?category_id=11
          Each country can at least send 3 climbers and put the rest on the supplementary list. As there are never more then 100 climbers present all climbers of this supplementary list can take part.
          All you need is an international License (~€75). So if USA Climbing wants to send 20 persons they can.

          I’m a little bit suprised about the fact that amount of bonus are more important then attempts for topouts. I’m sure that this has implications for the climbing style as wel as the setting style. But as the setting and climbing style is already very different from IFSC competitions compared to american competitions this only adds to that.

          I think the Main difference is that more than the americans, the boulders are internationally seen as puzzles that need to be solved. You can’t always do that by being stronger.

          In fact for the audience it is really exciting to see a boulder that has a easy solution and to see the climber “not getting it”, and then in the last round last minute he sees it and tops the problem. To me, this ads another aspect to competition climbing.

          In that point of view the ranking makes sense:
          1. Nuber of problems solved = Boulders topped.
          2. the speed that you can solve these problems = attempts needed to solve these problems.
          The bonus hold is only used to have a method of differentiating if these two criteria are equal.

          To me 3 boulders in a round seems small. As a setter you only have a limited number of ways to make a difference. if you reduce the number of problems from 4 to 3 it becomes more of a lottery. Certainly with the IFSC Scoring system (or the scoring system that was used) since you only have 2 holds that give you any points. The competition becomes more of a lottery. In itself that is not bad because the best (in these circumstances) will win but if you can make the american team, and can be send to worldcups only if you did well in this single comp you probably want a little less lottery.

          Oh, did i mention that i really liked the walls?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
  15. jeremy February 15, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    this conversation is starting on routesetter.com as well.
    in the rulebook (http://usaclimbing.net/rockcomps/resources/ABS12%20Rules09-29-2010.pdf), rule 21.3.5 says:The competitors ranked 1st through 6th place in each category/gender shall advance to the final round. In the event of a tie for 6th place, all 6th place competitors will advance. If a non-U.S. citizen competitor advances to next round, the next ranking U.S. citizen competitor for each non-U.S. citizen competitor placing 1st through 6th will also advance.

    the key is “next ranking us competitor”. it is quite clear that since sean and nick created 2 extra spots in finals (by qualifying within those top 6 spots), those 2 spots must be us citizens.

    im not saying its right, but those are the rules they laid out last sept.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Herman February 15, 2011 at 10:16 am #

      Wow, nice rulebook.
      Nice to see that all rules were laid down beforehand, as it should be.
      I couldn’t find these rules on the USAClimbing site though.

      This explains why Magnus is passed by.

      And rule 21.6.1 says that ties are not broken.
      So in fact Magnus and Alex should be ranked equal in the Semi’s.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  16. Herman February 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    They did have ties in the qualifiers, but for some reason they didn’t use it in the semi finals. e.g Woods and D’anastasio are both 10th, not 10th and 11th. Matty Hong, Alex Johnson andMagnus Midtboe are all 7th in semi’s.

    If you need a excell file that calculates this directly, please email me. Or use the one that the IFSC provides: http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/2011/Officials/IFSC Bouldering Excel.xls

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. ne2c » The ABS 12 National Championships Quick Thoughts & Recap - February 14, 2011

    […] what it takes to win at the highest level. And if you’re still hungry for more you can relive climbingnarc’s absolutely excellent and witty live blog here, check out Climbing magazine’s gallery here. OR… you can see the official event highlight […]

Leave a Reply to John Click here to cancel reply.