|
View Poll Results: Should the Olympic berth allotment more closely follow World results | |
Yes, more WC results giving OG berths, and fewer continental/host qualifications
|    | 9 | 40.91% | |
No, more continental/host qualifications
|    | 2 | 9.09% | |
The system is good as it is
|    | 9 | 40.91% | |
Some other change - please specify
|    | 2 | 9.09% |
07-29-2005, 06:19 AM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,958
| Continental allotment of Olympic places Hi!
The thread about team allotment in the OG reminded me of an at least as large unfairness (IMO) concerning allotment of the OG fencing places.
As it is, I think that the non-European countries get many more places than their world rankings would motivate. Without having done a statistical check on it, I still believe that the non-European countries have a significantly higher quouta OG berths/number of fencers in the top 48 world rankings. Furthermore, I believe that such a discrepancy still exists, even if one excludes fencers who are not top-three in their own home countries.
One can argue that the OG should give places for all over the world so that fencing is spread and people from non-powerhouses get someone to root for. However, I think that that reasoning has gone too far, given the limited numbers of especially team berths.
As it is, the host country has a place in all team events, nonwithstanding its world rankings. The Greek teams last time did not do too well. I think that it would be more appropriate if the host country gets two automatic team places in the weapons that they have their best world rankings, but has to qualify for any team places in addition to those.
I would furthermore think that more places should be alloted based on world ranking/World Championship placements, and that somewhat fewer places are set aside for continental champions/top rankers.
Opinions? Thoughts? Stats to prove me wrong?
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson
Last edited by PeterGustafsson; 07-29-2005 at 06:26 AM.
|
| | | And now for this message... | |
07-29-2005, 08:55 AM
|
#2 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Pennsauken, NJ
Posts: 8,529
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson As it is, the host country has a place in all team events, nonwithstanding its world rankings. The Greek teams last time did not do too well. I think that it would be more appropriate if the host country gets two automatic team places in the weapons that they have their best world rankings, but has to qualify for any team places in addition to those. | I don't believe this is true. My understanding from Athens was that Greece, as home country, got X slots (8?) which they could distribute in any manner of their choosing, including using them to be able to build teams. If my memory isn't playing tricks, that seems like about what you're suggesting.
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
|
| |
07-29-2005, 09:14 AM
|
#3 | | Scavenger
Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,519
| Peter - The solution you propose would be appropriate for a true world championships, but that is not what the Olympic Games really are. The games evolved as a sports festival with broad international participation and an emphasis on inclusion. Although they have been too successful for their own good, resulting in a restricted number of athletes and medals in a far-too-broad selection of sports from a huge array of countries, reducing the number of countries which can participate would only further the decay of the idea.
__________________
I never made a mistake in grammar but one in my life and as soon as I done it I seen it. -- Carl Sandburg |
| |
07-29-2005, 09:21 AM
|
#4 | | Immortal
Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Heidelberg, GE
Posts: 5,371
| It's undoubtedly never-neverland thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if we could go back to a system where any country can send a single athlete in a weapon, and those with multiple athletes in the top 100 world rankings can send up to three?
MR
__________________
Why sabre? Because you don't take heads with the point.
|
| |
07-29-2005, 09:25 AM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003 Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 393
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by sabreur It's undoubtedly never-neverland thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if we could go back to a system where any country can send a single athlete in a weapon, and those with multiple athletes in the top 100 world rankings can send up to three?
MR | Do you really want Eddie the Eagle in every event?
__________________
If you see my little red rooster, please drag him home
If you see my little red rooster, please drag him home
There ain't no peace in the barnyard,
Since the little red rooster been gone
|
| |
07-29-2005, 10:57 AM
|
#6 | | Scavenger
Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,519
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by mollusk Do you really want Eddie the Eagle in every event? | Yes, actually. That was fun.
__________________
I never made a mistake in grammar but one in my life and as soon as I done it I seen it. -- Carl Sandburg |
| |
07-29-2005, 11:05 AM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: UK
Posts: 784
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by sabreur It's undoubtedly never-neverland thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if we could go back to a system where any country can send a single athlete in a weapon, and those with multiple athletes in the top 100 world rankings can send up to three? | Oh yes, I am 100% behind you
Don't think it will happen though.
I don't think the current system is brilliant (being from a European country is not great!), but it is not a bad compromise...
Boo
__________________
Smarter than the Average Bear!!!
|
| |
07-30-2005, 03:32 PM
|
#8 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 22,767
| And when ( if ) the EU becomes a political reality, all the individual member countries will stop being able to be represented, and there will be a single EU team, right? That ought to cut down on the number of athletes and teams a bit.  |
| |
07-30-2005, 05:24 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: too far away
Posts: 125
| I think the current system works fine. What you Europeans don’t seem to understand is that non-European countries don’t have the opportunities to constantly compete in international tournaments like you do. You can just hop on a plane and go to Paris for the weekend, do your World Cup and come home. I live at the very tip of Africa so it is near impossible for me to go to world Cups. The Government and Federation pay nothing and so I can barely afford to go to World Champs once a year. I know That Australians and South Americans (who at least they have some world cups) have the same problem.
I also want the opportunity to go to the Olympics some day and in this regard the new system helps even out the odds. Besides the Olympics is, like Peach implied, about Sportsmanship and unity. Lets face it, the top 16 (generalization, I know)fencers are really who’s competing for Gold any way.
__________________
You dont need eyes to see. You need vision
|
| |
07-30-2005, 06:47 PM
|
#10 | | Armorer
Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Long Beach, CA / Las Vegas
Posts: 3,375
| But, what difference does it make if someone is 32nd in the world or 300th in the world and they go to the Olympics. Most likely they will loose every bout they fence in the Olympics. Half the Men loose every individual bout they fence at the Olympics. That is not true for the Women though. Most of the Women win at least one bout. At least that is how it is was at the last Olympics and if the FIE does what it says it will do that will be true for the next Olympics.
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
|
| |
07-31-2005, 10:51 AM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: UK
Posts: 784
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by DHCJr But, what difference does it make if someone is 32nd in the world or 300th in the world and they go to the Olympics. Most likely they will loose every bout they fence in the Olympics. Half the Men loose every individual bout they fence at the Olympics. That is not true for the Women though. Most of the Women win at least one bout. At least that is how it is was at the last Olympics and if the FIE does what it says it will do that will be true for the next Olympics. | Surely, in the Olympics, if you loose your first bout you are out fullstop... Assuming 24 in women's foil, 8 will leave the Olympics "loosing all their bouts"....
Boo
__________________
Smarter than the Average Bear!!!
|
| |
07-31-2005, 11:19 AM
|
#12 | | Armorer
Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Long Beach, CA / Las Vegas
Posts: 3,375
| So you agree with me Boo Boo. All the men have 32, so 16, half, loose their first bout for sure and they are out. But I was wrong in my statement on the men. I should have said was AT LEAST half will not win a single bout. We could have the new rule put out by Roch and both fencers black carded for passivity.
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
|
| |
07-31-2005, 03:25 PM
|
#13 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Pennsauken, NJ
Posts: 8,529
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by DHCJr So you agree with me Boo Boo. All the men have 32, so 16, half, loose their first bout for sure and they are out. But I was wrong in my statement on the men. I should have said was AT LEAST half will not win a single bout. We could have the new rule put out by Roch and both fencers black carded for passivity. | Don't forget the 4th person on various teams that never fence an Olympic bout... no losses, but they don't win a single one. :) More mens teams means more 4th men.
Now looking at the 24 women. 8 lose their first bout in the L32. Up to another 8 COULD lose their first bout in the L16. In theory 16/24 women could lose their only Olympic bout. With 32 men, half MUST win at least one Olympic bout (exlcuding the double blackcards).
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
|
| |
07-31-2005, 04:15 PM
|
#14 | | Armorer
Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Long Beach, CA / Las Vegas
Posts: 3,375
| I stand corrected and you are right theorectically more of the ladies COULD loose every bout. The trouble is the only way that would happen is for the 1st through the 8th ranked would have to be the ones who lost in the second round. In the first round 9 - 24 fence and 1 - 8 do not fence.
Saying that, is this a competiton or an demonstration. Most show up for one bout. Think of baseball at the '96 games. One team lost their first 3 games. Did that put them out? No, they went on to win the Gold medal.
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
|
| |
07-31-2005, 10:46 PM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,134
| The quote reprted to me by folks who worked at the Atlanta Olympics was "This is a show, not a competition."
__________________
If you give a man a fire, he is warm for the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
|
| |
08-01-2005, 12:47 AM
|
#16 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Angel, London
Posts: 2,439
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by oiuyt Don't forget the 4th person on various teams that never fence an Olympic bout... no losses, but they don't win a single one. |
and they don't even get a medal for their trouble... |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 PM. |