2014 Results
Click here for University Results.
Click here for Competitor Results.
University Results
1 Deakin Climbing Club
2 RMIT Outdoors Club
3 Melbourne University Mountaineering Club
4 Monash University Outdoors Club
5 La Trobe University Mountaineering Club
6 Swinburne University
University places were determined by the sum of their representing competitors’ top 30 climbs. The university with the highest sum won the title.
Competitor results
How categories were determined:
All competitors were ranked according to their scores. Categories were split where we found a large-ish gap between scores. (Independents were consulted throughout this process until a consensus was reached.) This method is used to determine categories in climbing and bouldering competitions using a similar format.
Note about ties:
Where ties occurred, scores were ‘back counted’. This means competitors’ individual climb scores were consulted: between the tied individuals, the competitor whose top climb was a higher grade was ranked higher, eg if Joe Bloggs’ did a grade 5 climb, and Jim Bloggs’ top climb was a grade 4, Joe Bloggs ranks higher. If both competitors’ top climbs were the same grade and they completed the same number of them, their second highest graded climb was consulted. In the event there was still a tie, the raw score (minus the additional flash point) score was consulted. In the event there was still a tie, the 11th, 12th and 13th etc climbs were consulted. After this, both climbers where given a tied score.
2013 Results
Click here for University Results.
Click here for Competitor Results.
University results
1 Melbourne University Mountaineering Club
2 Deakin Climbing Club
3 Monash University Outdoors Club
4 RMIT
5 LUMC
University places were determined by the sum of their representing competitors’ top 30 climbs. The university with the highest sum won the title.
Competitor results
How categories were determined:
All competitors were ranked according to their scores. Categories were split where we found a large-ish gap between scores. (Independents were consulted throughout this process until a consensus was reached.) This method is used to determine categories in climbing and bouldering competitions using a similar format.
Note about ties:
Where ties occurred, scores were ‘back counted’. This means competitors’ individual climb scores were consulted: between the tied individuals, the competitor whose top climb was a higher grade was ranked higher, eg if Joe Bloggs’ did a grade 5 climb, and Jim Bloggs’ top climb was a grade 4, Joe Bloggs ranks higher. If both competitors’ top climbs were the same grade, whoever completed more climbs at that grade was ranked higher. If both competitors’ top climbs were the same grade and they completed the same number of them, their second highest graded climb was consulted.
2011 Results
Click here for university results.
Click here for competitor results.
University results
1 Melbourne University
2 Monash
3 RMIT
4 Monash Roamers
5 Swinburne
6 La Trobe
7 La Trobe Bendigo
University places were determined by the sum of their representing competitors’ top 30 climbs. The university with the highest sum won the title.
The top 30 scores of each university are listed here.
Competitor results
Competitor scores and places are listed here.
How categories were determined:
All competitors were ranked according to their scores. Categories were split where we found a large-ish gap between scores. (Independents were consulted throughout this process until a consensus was reached.) This method is used to determine categories in climbing and bouldering competitions using a similar format.
Note about the male categories:
Among the male competitors, the first large-ish gap (between the scores 71 and 65) was too high up on the ranked list – the point of this competition was to encourage participation and a chance for competitors of all levels to compete. If we split cateories ‘Male A’ and ‘Male B’ here, the level that intermediate climbers would need to be climbing at would have been too tough. Thus, the second large-ish gap determined the competitors in the ‘Male B’ category. (Anyone who made it into the ‘Male A’ category should be pleased – you all performed phenomenally.)
Ideally we would have liked the split to have occurred around or just under the 50-point mark, but unfortunately there was no big gap in scores here. If we had split the ‘Male B’ category around the 50-point mark, the split would have been random – in other words, unfair. The point of splitting categories where a gap in scores occurs is that they indicate gaps between competitors’ abilities.
Note about ties:
Where ties occurred, scores were ‘back counted’. This means competitors’ individual climb scores were consulted: between the tied individuals, the competitor whose top climb was a higher grade was ranked higher, eg if Joe Bloggs’ did a grade 5 climb, and Jim Bloggs’ top climb was a grade 4, Joe Bloggs ranks higher. If both competitors’ top climbs were the same grade, whoever completed more climbs at that grade was ranked higher. If both competitors’ top climbs were the same grade and they completed the same number of them, their second highest graded climb was consulted. Back counting is practiced at other climbing and bouldering competitions.
At many competitions, ties often occur, and there are often differing opinions on how categories should be split. Unfortunately competition results aren’t an exact science. Please be proud of whatever you achieved on Saturday!
Click here for university results.
Click here for competitor results.
Vic Intervarsity Climbing Comp 