Ranking Tournament Results

[sabreuse]

I've notice some variety in how different division rank results in tournaments and I was wondering if there is some "official" way it should be done.

For example, in my Division, at the DE, everyone that gets to a particular round starts off equal. The fencers that win that round go up and the ones that lose are ranked based on the number of touches they score in the DE bout. If there is a tie, you look to see how the fencer was seeded going into that bout. This seems sort of equitable because, the lower you are seeded, the higher seeded fencer you will face. Theoretically, it will be harder to get touches off of them.

I was in a tournament this past weekend in another state where they ranked the losers (sorry) based on how they had been seeded going in to that round, regardless of how many touches they scored in the DE bout.

Is there a consensus on this?

[Arturo]

We calculate the final results according to how the fencer was seeded into the DE's.

------------------
When you parry, riposte

[kro]

Any tourney I have been in and the ones we run are based on seeding. Not touches.

kro

[Craig]

The traditional way to do this is by the seeding into direct eliminations.

So, if the #5 fencer is the highest ranked fencer to lose their bout in the round of 32 (to get to top 16), then that fencer ends up at #17.

On pp61 of the 1999 USFA rule book, section o.28 it states: "The remainder are placed, within each round of direct elimination, in accordance with their classification for the composition of the direct elimination table."

Cheers,
Craig

[sabreuse]

Craig,

Thanks for looking that up for me. Now I have something definitive. (I also think I have a 2nd place medal I'm not entitled to!)

Cheryl

[damianip]

It doesn't always seem fair but that's how it goes.

I was at an épée tournament last June where I was having a worse day than usual and got pasted by everyone in the pools except for my son whom I managed to beat (maybe it was because it was father's day, and he was just being nice).

My son started slower and lost all his pool bouts but by the time his last two bouts came up he went 4-5 on both of them. As the day went on, I got progressively worse, he got better.

In the DEs I got crushed by the eventual 5th place finisher, where my son did fairly well against the eventual third placed fencer.

Unjustly, I placed above him. He was clearly better than me that day but I came of the pools slightly ahead.

Simple rule: get to the final four so you know exactly where you placed and why.

Paolo

[BarryTice]

Better rule: Go undefeated so nobody has any questions about where you place.

[Arturo]

how could you have a 2nd place medal you are not entitled to? If you make it to the finals and loose, you are the #2 place of the tournament.

[sabreuse]

Arturo,

It was a mixed tournament. They pulled out the women's results and gave separate medals. The woman that took first place advanced a round farther than the other three women in the tournament. I scored more points in my DE bout in that round than the other 2 women did in theirs. However, the other 2 women both came into that round seeded higher than I did. Therefore, they should have finished higher than I did in that tournament.

[swordsen]

I have alwasy disliked that method for giving awards. I think if there is a mixed event you should just give out places for how peopel finished. Not try and seperate everyone after the event. Oh well.

[sabreuse]

Swordsen,

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. It feels wierd to be in a tournament and never actually fence any of the other women. The results that get pulled out of a mixed tournament are not necessarily indicative of the results you would get in a women-only tournament with the same women fencers. However, there are relatively few women sabre fencers so far (only 3 that regularly compete in our Division) AND I don't think it's realistic to expect men and women to compete on equal footing. Therefore, unless I want to go to a tournament and only fence 2 or 3 times, mixed tournaments are what I'm stuck with.

[swordsen]

Mixed tournaments are the norm where I am from. I just disagree on that not expecting them to fence on an equal footing. For one thing, if they do it the way you are, if you win a 15 person competition with 10 men and 5 women you get no rating. Wanna talk about unfair?

[sabreuse]

Actually, Swordsen, we kind of get the benefit of both worlds. Women in a mixed tournament get both rankings--where they placed in the overall tournament and where they placed among the women. Generally, around here, there aren't more than 15 sabre fencers in the tournament and the men dominate it so it doesn't matter. However, I earned an E rating in a mixed tournament of 17 where there were only 2 women (I came in 3rd). I guess that knocked some male fencer out of the 3rd place he would have had in a segregated competition so maybe that's not fair.

I know that on an individual basis there are female fencers who can beat male fencers. On average, though, the men generally beat the women.

[azfencer]

Around here we have mixed events and expect the women to fence equally with the men. We used to try to have women's events but we never had more than five or six women and the same couple of people won every time anyway. We also had some men who didn't think it was fair that women could fence two events (open and women's) and they couldn't. Not serious complaining, just commenting. This year we are having more U and D and under events. That lets the less experienced men and women fence each other instead of just letting the women fence each other. So far it has worked well, we have some beginners competing who wouldn't feel comfortable in an open event and a weaker field for the women who don't want to fence the tougher men. We also have ten or fifteen people instead of 5 or 6 which means more fencing for everyone. The women finish reasonably well in the mixed events by the way, they rarely win but several have earned ratings and placed well.