From grade points to Fibonacci: how bouldering comps are scored
Every bouldering comp has to answer the same question: how do you turn a day of people trying different problems into a single ranking? There are a few standard answers, and each one rewards a slightly different kind of climbing. Knowing which one an event uses will change how you spend your attempts.
This note explains the main systems in general terms, with worked examples using two made-up climbers, A and B. It isn't the rule book for any event. Rules vary between comps and change over time, so always check the organisers' site for the details that apply on the day.
Grade points: the simple version
The oldest and simplest system gives each problem a points value based on its grade. A problem graded V2 might be worth 20 points, a V4 worth 40, a V6 worth 60. You climb what you can, and your score is the total of your best few problems, often your best five or ten.
This works well outdoors, where problems already have grades and setters can't adjust anything. It is also easy to explain to a big, mixed field. Its weakness is that grades are rough. Two V4s can feel very different, and a linear table means a climber who ticks lots of moderate problems can sometimes outscore someone who climbs one or two much harder ones. If you want to read more about the grade scales themselves, the Wikipedia article on bouldering grades covers the V-scale and the Font scale.
Worked example. Using that table and counting the best three problems: Climber A tops a V2, a V3 and a V4, for 20 + 30 + 40 = 90 points. Climber B tops two V2s and a V6, for 20 + 20 + 60 = 100 points. B wins, but only just, even though B climbed something two grades harder than anything A managed.
Fibonacci-style tables: rewarding the hard stuff
To fix that, some comps use tables where the points rise faster than the grades. A common approach borrows the Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 and so on), where each number is the sum of the two before it. Each step up in difficulty is worth noticeably more than the last, so one hard problem can outweigh several easier ones.
Here is a simple made-up table:
| Grade band | Points |
|---|---|
| Band 1 (easiest) | 10 |
| Band 2 | 20 |
| Band 3 | 30 |
| Band 4 | 50 |
| Band 5 | 80 |
| Band 6 | 130 |
| Band 7 (hardest) | 210 |
Worked example. Counting the best three again: Climber A tops problems in bands 3, 3 and 4, for 30 + 30 + 50 = 110. Climber B tops bands 1, 2 and 6, for 10 + 20 + 130 = 160. Now B wins comfortably. The table is telling climbers that pushing their limit is worth more than ticking a lot of comfortable problems.
The trade-off is fairness across a mixed field. A steep table can make the top of the rankings a contest of who managed the single hardest problem. Organisers often balance this with categories, so climbers are ranked against others of a similar level.
Flash bonuses and attempt counts
Many club and gym comps add a bonus for a flash, meaning topping a problem on your first try. A typical rule might add 10 per cent to a problem's value, or a fixed number of points, if you flash it. Others record how many attempts each top took and use that to break ties.
This changes tactics. With flash bonuses, it pays to look at a problem carefully before you pull on, rehearse the moves from the ground, and watch how others climb it. Without them, you can afford to throw a few quick burns at something to learn it.
Tops, zones and attempts: the international model
Top-level competitions run by the international federation, World Climbing (formerly the IFSC), have long used a different approach. Instead of a points table, climbers try a small set of problems, usually four or five in a round, with a fixed time on each. Each problem has a top and at least one zone hold partway up, and judges record how many attempts it took to reach each.
In the classic version of that system, climbers are ranked by number of tops, then number of zones, then the fewest attempts for tops, then the fewest attempts for zones. A climber with three tops always beats a climber with two, however efficient the second climber was.
For the Paris 2024 Olympics, the boulder round switched to points. According to the Wikipedia article on sport climbing at the 2024 Olympics, each of the four boulders was worth up to 25 points: 5 for reaching the first zone, 10 for the second zone and 25 for the top.
Worked example. Under the classic count, Climber A finishes with 2 tops and 4 zones, while Climber B finishes with 2 tops and 3 zones. A is ahead because of the extra zone. If both had 2 tops and 4 zones, the climber who needed fewer attempts for those tops would win.
Which system suits which comp?
- Grade points suit outdoor events and big social comps where problems already have grades and the field is mixed.
- Fibonacci-style tables suit series that want to reward hard climbing and track it across several rounds.
- Tops, zones and attempts suit small finals with few problems, judges on every boulder and an audience watching.
Many club comps blend these: points for qualifiers, then a tops-and-zones final for the top few in each category. Series often add an overall ranking across rounds, counting each climber's best results.
For the history of how national comps in New Zealand used these ideas, see thirteen summers of national bouldering comps.