My predominant recollection of the Olympic Sport Climbing event at Tokyo 2020 is twofold: firstly, it was perplexing, and secondly, it appeared as a disorganized debacle. The impression I was left with was one of deep dissatisfaction due to the organizers’ baffling choice to amalgamate two distinctly different disciplines—speed climbing, which focuses on rapid ascension of simpler routes, and lead and bouldering, which demand navigating routes of considerable difficulty.
This amalgamation seemed to compromise the fairness of the competition, affecting nearly all athletes involved. Fortunately, significant changes distinguish the initial Olympic Sport Climining event introduced in Tokyo from the events we are witnessing this week in Paris.
First, speed is now its own event.
The Paris 2024 Olympics presents a noteworthy evolution in the realm of Sport Climbing, hosting two separate events where speed athletes and Boulder & Lead athletes each compete for distinct gold medals. This development is of substantial significance. In a 2021 article, I contended that expecting a speed climber to compete in Boulder & Lead disciplines is akin to expecting a short track speed skater to compete in figure skating—while both sports involve ice, they demand radically different skills and techniques. This comparison remains apt, underscored by the fact that no athlete in Paris is participating in both the Speed and the Boulder & Lead Combined events.
Looking to the future, there is potential for the Olympics to align more closely with the IFSC World Championships, which awards four separate medals for Speed, Boulder, Lead, and a combined Boulder & Lead event. For the moment, however, separating the Speed event from the combined disciplines is a logical step. This distinction acknowledges the specialized skills required for each category. Notably, athletes such as Janja Garnbret, Adam Ondra, Jakob Schubert, Colin Duffy, Toby Roberts, and Anraku Sorato have demonstrated prowess in both Boulder and Lead, capturing World Cups in each discipline. Furthermore, a significant portion of climbers at the Olympic level have achieved podium positions in both formats at the World Cup level, underscoring the high level of versatility and skill prevalent among competitors.
Second, this means there’s a new scoring structure for the combined format
With the exclusion of Speed from the Combined event at the Paris Olympics, the scoring system has transitioned to a more intuitive format, where athletes accumulate points based on their ascent heights on the boulders and lead walls.
During the Tokyo Olympics, incorporating Speed into the Combined event necessitated a different scoring approach. Since reaching the top of the speed wall is a common achievement, Olympic organizers established a complex scoring system where climbers received points corresponding to their ranks in each discipline. The total score was calculated by multiplying these points across the disciplines, with the lowest scores securing medals. For instance, Adam Ondra’s results in Tokyo—fourth in Speed, sixth in Boulder, and second in Lead—resulted in a combined score of 48 (4 x 6 x 2). Alberto Ginés López, by contrast, won gold with a score of 28, reflecting his varied placements across the events. This multiplication-based scoring led to dramatic shifts in rankings with minor changes in performance, adding a layer of suspense and complexity that was both frustrating and intriguing. Covering the event for a climbing publication, I found myself constantly checking calculations, worried about potential errors in interpreting the unfolding competition.
In Paris, the scoring framework is significantly simplified, though it retains its intricacies. In essence, the scoring is determined by the climbers’ progress on each of the four boulders and the lead route within each round—a straightforward approach on the surface. However, the scoring nuances still demand a deeper understanding, as detailed in our article, “How Is Olympic Sport Climbing Scored?”
This refined approach to scoring is beneficial for the sport for several reasons, enhancing its accessibility and spectator engagement.
1. Speed climbers don’t get the shaft.
Prior to 2016, when Sport Climbing was first included in the Olympic Games, Speed climbing walls were a rarity in commercial climbing gyms across the United States. This discipline was largely perceived as an obscure variant of climbing, popular primarily in regions like Iran, Indonesia, and several post-Soviet countries. Consequently, American audiences viewed the integration of Speed climbing into the Tokyo Olympics’ Combined event with skepticism, concerned about its potential to skew the outcomes of the more favored Boulder and Lead events. It was often overlooked that for enthusiasts and specialists of Speed climbing, the Tokyo Olympics represented a profound disappointment.
The format of the competition placed these athletes at a disadvantage, as their skills in Speed did not translate well to success in Lead or Boulder. This structural bias was reflected in the fact that only three Speed climbers reached the finals—two by dominating their semifinals, and one, France’s Anouck Jaubert, by also excelling in the Boulder round. In the finals, despite Aleksandra Mirosław’s dominant performance in Speed and setting a new world record, her limitations in the other disciplines precluded her from medaling.
This year presents a different narrative. Aleksandra Mirosław, recognized as the world’s premier speed climber, has returned to the competition. Her recent performances suggest she remains in formidable form, having broken her own world record twice during Monday’s semifinals and now aiming to lower her time even further, approaching the six-second barrier. With such prowess, she is poised to secure a medal in this year’s games, a testament to her enduring skill and the evolution of the sport’s recognition of specialized talents.
2. It removes randomness (and adds credibility) to the Combined event.
In the Tokyo Olympics, France’s Bassa Mawem was the sole male speed specialist to qualify for the finals. After triumphing in the early Speed rounds and securing his place in the final, Mawem suffered a bicep rupture on the semifinal lead route, preventing his participation in the final events. This incident significantly altered the dynamics of the competition. With Mawem’s absence, the remaining seven finalists, primarily specialized in bouldering and/or lead climbing, found their speed skills unexpectedly critical, introducing a substantial element of unpredictability into the outcome. Indeed, it was Alberto Gines Lopez’s victory in Speed—combined with his fourth-place finish in Lead and seventh in Boulder—that secured him the Olympic gold. Similarly, Adam Ondra’s unexpected fourth-place finish in Speed momentarily placed him in contention for the gold medal, demonstrating how pivotal the Speed event had become.
The consequential role of Speed in the men’s competition highlighted a perceived disconnect between the event’s stated objective (to identify the best climber of the day) and the actual challenges faced by the competitors. Without the Speed component, the results would have differed markedly, necessitating alternative methods to determine the winners. For instance, Nathaniel Coleman’s victory in Boulder and fifth place in Lead, Jakob Schubert’s win in Lead coupled with a fifth place in Boulder, and Colin Duffy’s consistent performance raised questions about who might have emerged victorious under a different format.
While some may argue for the elimination of Speed from the competition, citing its randomness and the injuries it can cause, such randomness also introduces an element of intrigue that keeps competitions from becoming monotonous. Nevertheless, the structure of the event led many observers to view the results as mere anomalies, products of an Olympic administration that failed to grasp the essence of climbing, thus designing a format that could not accurately reflect the true capabilities of the climbers. Critics often dismissed these outcomes as flukes, eagerly returning to the more traditionally valued World Cup events.
However, it’s worth noting that the structure seemed more effective in the women’s field. Speed specialists like Aleksandra Mirosław and Anouck Jaubert not only qualified for the finals but also excelled, finishing first and second in Speed respectively. This allowed the Bouldering and Lead events to unfold more independently, with minimal interference from the speed specialists who, though outmatched, participated in these more challenging disciplines. Ultimately, spectators witnessed Janja Garnbret dominate across categories, fulfilling expectations and showcasing the depth of talent within the field.
3. It makes the competition easier to understand—and therefore more fun for all audiences.
One significant issue with the Tokyo Olympics, as previously discussed, was the profound complexity of the competition’s state, which was challenging to decipher for seasoned climbers and particularly daunting for newcomers to the sport. Non-climbers were required to navigate unfamiliar terminology and a baffling scoring system, which could detract from their viewing experience. The intricacies of the scoring were not only perplexing but also potentially alienating for those unaccustomed to the sport’s nuances.
However, the introduction of a new scoring format has markedly simplified understanding the progress of the competition. Although, as an English major with a penchant for precision, I might still prefer to have a calculator at hand, the revised system essentially boils down to basic addition, making it significantly more accessible for the general audience. This change is a substantial improvement, easing the viewer’s ability to track and comprehend the unfolding events.
For those interested in a more detailed critique of the Tokyo Olympics’ shortcomings, I invite you to read my 2021 analysis titled “How Can You Set a World Record and Not Medal in the Olympics?” This piece explores the dramatic shift in outcomes, such as Adam Ondra’s unexpected drop from potential gold medalist to sixth place, following Jakob Schubert’s exceptional performance in Lead. The article also delves into the disproportionate disadvantages faced by speed specialists under the combined event structure, providing a comprehensive examination of the unique dynamics at play during the games.