That is the question? Whether 'tis a better strategy for TempO to consider carefully whilst the clock ticks or to suffer through uncertainty with haste. Unfortunately for Team USA, the answer is fast and right. We were neither. Rather, the two strategies employed within our team led to almost identical results. At first, the results were more disparate, due to the difficulty of station 8. This station was a long distance station. Competitors were seated on a terrace overlooking the river and controls were scattered across approximately 300 meters on the far river bank. Changing lighting conditions through the day and the sheer distance to controls affected visibility. Many competitors reported never actually seeing all six controls. Eventually, the organizers decided that the right thing was to void that station. This hurt Clare who had done well there, but was a welcome relief to David, Sharon, and Mika, who had difficulty with the station.
The course therefore ended up having seven stations with four tasks at each. Sharon took her time at every station, and the outcome was an almost perfect set of answers. She missed only two and at least one of those was a naming mistake. Clare and Mika, on the other hand, were working harder on their speed, and missed more tasks as a result. They both averaged about 50 seconds per station with Mika missing six controls and Clare missing seven. In the final results, Mika, Sharon, and Clare finished right next to each other in places 66, 67, and 68.
Despite seemingly low placings. This is quite an improvement for Team USA in TempO. Mika's top result represents a placing of 83% down the results list and his score was about 181% behind the winner's time. Our top result in the past has been 90% down the results list and 236% behind the winner. Not only is this top result an improvement, but three of our four competitors were all at about that same level. Much preferred to having all three in the bottom 10 of the results.