What determines the Final Placement in Competitions?

[lurkerdad]

Hi all,

I tried looking at the USFA Handbook and searching the forums, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I'm sure everybody here knows it, so please tell me:

In a fencing competition, what determines the final placement of the fencers (after the final 4 of course)? Is it the initial seeding of the fencers, or the seeding or results (victories/indicators?) after the pools, or who they lost to in the DE? Or a combination of these?

Thanks a lot to everybody around here! As you can tell from my user id, my 9-year old kid just started fencing a year ago here in CA and he loves it and has been doing really well in local competitions...so I guess next year, NAC's here we come! This site has been an invaluable resource at getting us up to speed, and I thank Craig and everybody who hangs around here.

[eac]

If you lost in the round of 16, you'll be placed between 9th and 16th. Within that, it's determined by pool result. It doesn't matter who you lost to. If you lost in the round of 8, it's between 5 and 8, lost in the 32, between 17 and 32, etc.

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by eac

If you lost in the round of 16, you'll be placed between 9th and 16th. Within that, it's determined by pool result. It doesn't matter who you lost to. If you lost in the round of 8, it's between 5 and 8, lost in the 32, between 17 and 32, etc.

Hi eac,

That's what I thought. The thing is, I looked in some old SYC results in Pacific Coast Section, USFA, and from the pool results, I couldn't figure out how they placed the fencers from say, 9 to 16. After the number of victories, it didn't seem to be the indicators (Touches Scored - Touches Received), so I decided to quit analyzing and just ask the experts.

So is it really officially the number of pool victories, then indicators then, that determines the final results placement among the fencers who get eliminated?

[RebelFencer]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Hi eac,

That's what I thought. The thing is, I looked in some old SYC results in Pacific Coast Section, USFA, and from the pool results, I couldn't figure out how they placed the fencers from say, 9 to 16. After the number of victories, it didn't seem to be the indicators (Touches Scored - Touches Received), so I decided to quit analyzing and just ask the experts.

So is it really officially the number of pool victories, then indicators then, that determines the final results placement among the fencers who get eliminated?

Think of it like this: After pools everyone is seeded into the DE bracket. If everyone finishes in the round they're supposed to, then everyone will place where they seed. But if any upsets happen, as they often do, then the final placement is skewed by a higher seed in a lower round. For example, if the Number one seed gets beaten by the Number eight seed in the round of eight and everyone else wins and loses how they're seeded...the first seed will take fifth place since he's the highest seed in that round. The fifth seed would then take sixth, the sixth seed seventh and so on.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

That's what I thought. The thing is, I looked in some old SYC results in Pacific Coast Section, USFA, and from the pool results, I couldn't figure out how they placed the fencers from say, 9 to 16. After the number of victories, it didn't seem to be the indicators (Touches Scored - Touches Received), so I decided to quit analyzing and just ask the experts.

It goes by the initial seeding of the people who lost in a particuler round.
For example, if the fencers who lost in the round of 16 where originally seeded as following: 2, 5, 9, 10, 22, 13, 14, 17 then the the final placement would be as follows:

9 ---> 2
10 --> 5
11 --> 9
12 --> 10
13 --> 13
14 --> 14
15 --> 17
16 --> 22

[teamusaepee]

It should follow the DE seeding (the one that uses the pool results)...which follows: 1)# of victories, 2)percentage of victories (victories divided by number of bouts) 3)indicator (scored minus received), 4)# touches scored. The percentage of victories may have been why the results you looked at didn't seem to follow indicators. Within a specific pool, ranking is determined by # victories first, then indicator, then # touches scored.

So, for example, these four fencers lost in the round of 8 and had DE seedings as follows:
Fencer Blue: Seeded 2nd into DEs
Fencer Yellow: Seeded 15th into DEs
Fencer Green: Seeded 5th into DEs
Fencer Red: Seeded 20th into DEs

So, their ranking in the final results would be as follows:
5. Fencer Blue
6. Fencer Green
7. Fencer Yellow
8. Fencer Red

Because Fencer Blue had a higher DE seed than Fencer Green, Blue bumps Green down to place #6, and so on.

[teamusaepee]

There you go - words, numbers, or colors, take your pick.

[foildad]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Hi eac,

That's what I thought. The thing is, I looked in some old SYC results in Pacific Coast Section, USFA, and from the pool results, I couldn't figure out how they placed the fencers from say, 9 to 16. After the number of victories, it didn't seem to be the indicators (Touches Scored - Touches Received), so I decided to quit analyzing and just ask the experts.

So is it really officially the number of pool victories, then indicators then, that determines the final results placement among the fencers who get eliminated?

It isn't number of victories and then indicator. It's percentage of victores out of total number of pool bouts and then indicator. This is an issue when not all pools are of equal size. That may have been what confused things for you.

Welcome to the wonderful world of being a fencing parent.

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by teamusaepee

It should follow the DE seeding (the one that uses the pool results)...which follows: 1)# of victories, 2)percentage of victories (victories divided by number of bouts) 3)indicator (scored minus received), 4)# touches scored. The percentage of victories may have been why the results you looked at didn't seem to follow indicators. Within a specific pool, ranking is determined by # victories first, then indicator, then # touches scored.

So, for example, these four fencers lost in the round of 8 and had DE seedings as follows:
Fencer Blue: Seeded 2nd into DEs
Fencer Yellow: Seeded 15th into DEs
Fencer Green: Seeded 5th into DEs
Fencer Red: Seeded 20th into DEs

So, their ranking in the final results would be as follows:
5. Fencer Blue
6. Fencer Green
7. Fencer Yellow
8. Fencer Red

Because Fencer Blue had a higher DE seed than Fencer Green, Blue bumps Green down to place #6, and so on.

Hi teamusaepee,

Thanks for explaining it in detail! Yes, after looking at the PCS website results again, the seedings indeed do follow the order as you explained it. Guess I had the bad luck to pick on an example which had to use the percentage of victories tiebreak rule. Still, I didn't know that that counted, so it's good that I asked (and made me un-lurk)!

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by foildad

It isn't number of victories and then indicator. It's percentage of victores out of total number of pool bouts and then indicator. This is an issue when not all pools are of equal size. That may have been what confused things for you.

Welcome to the wonderful world of being a fencing parent.

Hi foildad,

Thanks! BTW, I was "inspired" by your name. Hope to meet you sometime!

[peet]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Guess I had the bad luck to pick on an example which had to use the percentage of victories tiebreak rule. Still, I didn't know that that counted, so it's good that I asked (and made me un-lurk)!

Of course, the percentage-of-victories factor is important in a majority of events, since most events don't have equal sized pools in the first round. They almost always have to have some 6's and some 7's (or 5's and 6's, or whatever).

-p

[KD5MDK]

As a note, there is only one NAC (NAC F, in April) that a 10 year old is eligable for unless they are on the Y14 National Rolling Points List. Then they are eligable for the Cadet events at NAC A, B, and JOs. Of course, there is also Y10 events at Summer Nationals, SYCs and RYCs. But in general, unless your 10-12 year old is extremely exceptional, you won't be attending more than one NAC.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by teamusaepee

It should follow the DE seeding (the one that uses the pool results)...which follows: 1)# of victories, 2)percentage of victories (victories divided by number of bouts) 3)indicator (scored minus received), 4)# touches scored.

# of victories is not a factor, only percentage of victories. It is possible for somebody to sweep a pool with 6Vs and a +6 and another to sweep with 5Vs and a +25. They both have a 1.00 V%. The person with 5Vs would be seeded first. According to your order, he would not.(rule o.19)

[FencingKitten]

In case of a tie coming out of pools, by the way, the fencers should be randomized to be seeded into the DE bracket, but the final results should show a _T if two fencers tied coming out of pools and then ended up losing in the same round, and when there is not a bout for third. Just a quick additional note.

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

As a note, there is only one NAC (NAC F, in April) that a 10 year old is eligable for unless they are on the Y14 National Rolling Points List. Then they are eligable for the Cadet events at NAC A, B, and JOs. Of course, there is also Y10 events at Summer Nationals, SYCs and RYCs. But in general, unless your 10-12 year old is extremely exceptional, you won't be attending more than one NAC.

Thanks, I was treating the Summer Nationals as the equivalent of a NAC (isnt it?). And yeah, for 9 I guess he's been doing well as he's always in the upper half of the Y12's he's been on (as for Y10, he's used to being in the top 4 all the time). But I don't think he'll be doing Y14 anytime soon.

BTW, I keep on pronouncing "NAC" in my head as one word (NAK, rhymes with "pack"). Is this correct or does everybody else pronounce it by just saying the letters (EN AY SEE)?

[foildad]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

In case of a tie coming out of pools, by the way, the fencers should be randomized to be seeded into the DE bracket, but the final results should show a _T if two fencers tied coming out of pools and then ended up losing in the same round, and when there is not a bout for third. Just a quick additional note.

As in Junior MF at the NAC "B" in Albuquerque: three way tie for 6th just as FK descibes.

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Thanks, I was treating the Summer Nationals as the equivalent of a NAC (isnt it?). And yeah, for 9 I guess he's been doing well as he's always in the upper half of the Y12's he's been on (as for Y10, he's used to being in the top 4 all the time). But I don't think he'll be doing Y14 anytime soon.

BTW, I keep on pronouncing "NAC" in my head as one word (NAK, rhymes with "pack"). Is this correct or does everybody else pronounce it by just saying the letters (EN AY SEE)?

I prefer EN AY SEE, but NAK is probably more common. Either is OK

[KD5MDK]

I believe you need to attend an RYC (or SYC?) to register for the NAC F or Summer Nationals. As a matter of fact, the Y10 and 12 events at Summer Nationals are pretty much identical to the ones at NAC F, except perhaps rather larger in size. The other events (Div I, II, III, Junior, Cadet, Y14, Vet) are different, in format or in needing to qualify, whereas Y10 and 12 you just need to have attended an RYC. But yeah, from your point of view they're essentially the same.

I say "NAK" and find the "EN AY SEE" pronunciation strange, but I suspect it's a regional variation (hmm, which use which? I think there was a thread on this a long time ago.)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by larkmaj

# of victories is not a factor, only percentage of victories. It is possible for somebody to sweep a pool with 6Vs and a +6 and another to sweep with 5Vs and a +25. They both have a 1.00 V%. The person with 5Vs would be seeded first. According to your order, he would not.(rule o.19)

For that matter, it's possible to sweep a pool with 6Vs, 0 Ind, 0 TS. It's just very difficult and requires considerable luck.

-B

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

For that matter, it's possible to sweep a pool with 6Vs, 0 Ind, 0 TS. It's just very difficult and requires considerable luck.

-B

I'd like to see you try Brad... PARTICULARLY in sabre... (and no collusion or telling others your plan)

-w

[grotto]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

For that matter, it's possible to sweep a pool with 6Vs, 0 Ind, 0 TS. It's just very difficult and requires considerable luck.

-B

Possible yes i'd lov