Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

oiuyt · 09-16-2005, 07:24 PM

Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear.

For Division I there are two distinct formats, one for NACs, the other for National Championships.

In the former the format is round of pools, ~60% promotion to (even-sized) round of pools, 60% promotion to straight DE to the round of 32 or 16, whichever is the first full round, DE with repechage from that round to the 8, straight DE from the 8 to finish.

In the latter the format is round of pools, 80% promotion to straight DE to the finish.

Absolutely nothing has changed in either of these formats for the past several years, nor are there any changes for this current season. Despite the possible oddity, the fact remains that there is a different format for NACs than there is for the Championships.

-B

JEC · 09-16-2005, 09:39 PM

There is a HUGE difference between who can attend a Division I NAC as compared to the Div. I Championship. That is one of the main reasons for the difference between the two formats.

oiuyt · 09-18-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Inq- perhaps a misread rather than a typo (so a reado? :) )?

For reference, this statement was NOT intended to make fun of Inq ("make fun of old people" -- per the negative rep I received (which I do not believe was from Inq)).

-B
*who thinks that rep should be signed, when given at all*

Inquartata · 09-18-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

For reference, this statement was NOT intended to make fun of Inq ("make fun of old people" -- per the negative rep I received (which I do not believe was from Inq)).

It was not; I understood what you were saying ( and it's quite likely that you were right---I was just skimming the Athlete's Handbook when I came across the 60% reference ).

I still have no idea what's going on with the rep business.

sanadika · 09-18-2005, 02:08 PM

Please excuse my ignorance on this topic but could someone break it down to the most basic level so i understand what this rule means? The only thing i have to compare it with is when qualifiing only the top 25% were able to go so it was usually the top three winners could go to nationals.Am i on the right track?I fence senior and vet 4049 .

Peach · 09-18-2005, 03:22 PM

The idea is that in a national championships (say, in Atlanta in 2006), everybody in the event gets to fence in the pool.
After the pools, the seeding is calculated based on individual results.
The top 80% of competitors get seeded into the direct elimination tableau.
The bottom 20% get to take their sweaty uniforms off and relax, because they're out already.

Apparently this is intended to make the competition more keen, cutthroat, and demanding.

Competitors will, in theory, fence their hearts out in the pool instead of lolling about languidly brandishing their weapon. And those who are cast out will wail and gnash their teeth in the darkness, vowing to return in better shape next year. As a Vet-50-59 fencer myself, I suspect we're already doing that anyway, even if it doesn't look like it

In a Division I NAC such as Pittsburgh, there are two rounds of pools with cuts after each pool, and then DEs. A larger percentage wails and gnashes teeth in those.

Inquartata · 09-18-2005, 03:31 PM

Music to the ears of the "more competitive" and "non-scrub" fencers, presumably. At least to those of the Bout and LO Committees.

oiuyt · 09-18-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

For reference, this statement was NOT intended to make fun of Inq ("make fun of old people" -- per the negative rep I received (which I do not believe was from Inq)).

-B
*who thinks that rep should be signed, when given at all*

And the positive rep comment:

Quote:

Inq deserves to be ridiculed for any number of reasons.

Which, while I also don't think was from Inq, is somewhat more likely to have been. :)

-B
*who thinks that ALL rep should be signed, when given at all*
*and who further thinks that the rep should be signed automatically, so as to avoid forged "signatures"*

Inquartata · 09-19-2005, 11:20 PM

Except that I would have signed it.

sanadika · 09-20-2005, 02:05 AM

Thank you Peach!

oiuyt · 09-20-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except that I would have signed it.

True.

Although apparently now all rep is signed (query: I don't have any signed rep, is the signage not retroactive or am I just missing how to see who sent the rep?).

-B

KD5MDK · 09-20-2005, 03:19 PM

It is retroactive, as I haven't received any rep since Aug 3 or so and it is all signed for me.

oiuyt · 09-20-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

It is retroactive, as I haven't received any rep since Aug 3 or so and it is all signed for me.

Hrm. So where does it say the giver? With the comment somewhere?

-B

oso97 · 09-20-2005, 04:37 PM

Took me awhile to figure it out too, Brad. There is another entire column that appeared with the name of the giver...

DOH!!!

oiuyt · 09-20-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oso97

Took me awhile to figure it out too, Brad. There is another entire column that appeared with the name of the giver...

DOH!!!

Mmmm, I don't HAVE that column (to the left according to the (rep) note I just received). I've noticed in the past that some features haven't appeared for Fencing Experts when they do for the rest of the board (I assume because for the board we're considered a different class of user). I'll mention it to Craig.

-B

JEC · 09-20-2005, 05:42 PM

Most likely you have done this, but just to be sure... You're clicking on User Tool panel (under User Tools) and have the latest reputation button pointing up.

oiuyt · 09-20-2005, 07:30 PM

That column has now been added. (NICE, go off to practice, come back and have a new feature).

-B