Final seeding after DEs

[LTranter]

I was wondering if someone can explain the logic of this to me.

I understand seeding after pools. From what I have been able to gather, results from pools follow into DEs. So a fencer who had a bad pool round, won 1st round DEs, lost 2nd round DEs would seeded in the final results at the bottom of the 2nd round losers because of the poor pool results regardless of how that DE round went.

I guess my "problem" with this is that this fencer (okay, it was my son this weekend ) made a terrific comeback from a crappy pool round, won 1st round DE 15-9, lost the 2nd round 15-7, but will finish below someone who lost the 2nd round of DE 15-2 because of poorer pool results. In my fencing dream world (don't we all have one?) pools would only determine in seeding a tie with 2 fencers who were eliminated in the same round, same score.

This is like saying a sprinter in the finals who finishes 3rd, really only finishes 5th because 2 other runners in the finals had times in the heats faster than his.

Can anyone tell me why the seeds are ranked by pools not DE results?

Thanks,

L

[Philistine]

I think the theory is something along the lines of having something to objectively rely upon.

In a given pool, everyone has fenced everyone else, so the finish order makes sense in being their placement order.

In DE's, the score (other than who reaches 15) is immaterial, so that it wouldn't conceptually make sense to seed based on score. There's really no reason to suppose that fencer X, who lost to fencer Y 15-8 is worse than Fencer A, who lost to fencer B 15-10.

Heck, in all but sabre, it's not at all unlikely that some winning scores will be less than some losing scores.

--Philistine

[KD5MDK]

Because the score of a DE bout doesn't necessarily indicate too much other than win/lose. For example, supposing your son was fencing the weakest person to win a DE bout in the 2nd round, while the other fencer who lost 15-2 was up against the strongest fencer in the tournament?

[oiuyt]

Anyone else have sounds of Tevye signing "Tradition, tradition! Tradition!" running through their head?

No, didn't think so.

-B

[lindajdunn]

Much is determined by who he fenced in that DE.

If he was last and fenced Fencer #1 and won, then he'd move WAY up there. More likely, however, Fencer #1 had a "bye" and he fenced someone who was seeded only a little above himself or possibly lower.

For example:

A 15 fencer pool would mean

Fencer #1 has a bye and fences no one.
Fencer #2 fences #15
Fencer #3 fences #14
Fencer #4 fences #13
Fencer #5 fences #12
Fencer #6 fences #11
Fencer #7 fences #10
Fencer #8 fences #9

If Fencer #9 defeats #8, he only moves up ONE position unless the fencer(s)below him defeat the higher seeded fencers.

I've seen pools of numbers such that #14 and #15 fenced one another and when that happened, #15 could only move up one position by winning his first DE and it would require another DE win to move up.

It's based upon the seeding of your opponent. After all, it takes much more skill to defeat Fencer #1 than Fencer #14 out of #15.

[IanSerotkin]

The only truly fair solution (if you don't like the current method) is to fence out all places. But, that is rarely done because it more than doubles the length of time it takes to run the tournament and is as confusing as repechage.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

The only truly fair solution (if you don't like the current method) is to fence out all places. But, that is rarely done because it more than doubles the length of time it takes to run the tournament and is as confusing as repechage.

It's nowhere NEAR as confusing as repechage... it's actually pretty straightforward.

-m

[Chris]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

The only truly fair solution (if you don't like the current method) is to fence out all places. But, that is rarely done because it more than doubles the length of time it takes to run the tournament and is as confusing as repechage.

Ian is right here - fencing out all places IS a big hassle, though, it's probably less confusing than repechage: You just keep fencing people who did what you did - winners fence winners; loser fence losers; on both sides of the table.

Although, I am not sure whether this format is approved by USFA for classification purposes...there's only a couple ways it's likely to matter much...Unless you managed to have an A3/A4, B4, C4 type event, in which can hassle factor would probably preclude that method.

As for the 'fairness' of it, and weighting of pool performances, well, you can have that discussion, but there's always going to be a challenge in determining the placing of a non-winner.

No one cared that the '98 Vikings were 14-2, and set the all-time scoring record - when they missed the last second field goal, and lost in the play-offs to (what is usually described as) a lesser team, that was it: No Superbowl for you!

Likewise, if you want to go another example - if a runner sets a new world record in the SEMI-FINAL heat of the Olympics, well, I guess they'll get a good lane placement in the finals, but, no medals for the world record: you still gotta win that last race! Likewise, the runner who is second in the final heat, doesn't lose their medal because they just squeaked by in all their qualifying races!

Many sports don't really even try to sort this out: Who came in 5th in the NFL last year? No one really cares, but obviously, in our sport, there are ramifications to gaging relative performance.

The D/E format is set up the way it is to motivate & reward the fencers for doing their best in the pools. Does that always happen, of course not, but it happens more, with this system, than it did, in other formats, because of this emphasis.

If you feel you, or your son, may prove themselves more capable in another format, there ARE other formats that are allowed: last time I checked, the USFA is still accepting a straight pool format, although the Operations Manual may be a little confusing about this...

I might recommend that you get a little more involved in the tournament process in your division (they all operate a little differently), and try to get a tournament scheduled where there ARE some additional placing bouts held (you wouldn't have to fence off for EVERY place). Win, or lose, this could be valuable experience, as fencing 3 and 4 D/E bouts is a very different experience for both your mind, and body, than fencing 1 or 2!

Granted, I wouldn't recommend trying to do this very often: it will, essentially double the time required to get through the D/E table (at a minimum), and I would probably only do it at a restricted tournament, like D & under, and maybe even restrict the number of entries to the event...

Probably think about early fall, for people without much tournament experience, OR late spring, as a preparation for people going to Summer Nationals.

Good luck!

[Jengar]

If you really want confusing, how about combining "repechage" and "fencing all places?" Take all the fencers who are in the group just eliminated and then fence to all places within each losing group. In a large tournament, this would be virtually impossible. USFA puts out a bracket to fence all places in a group of 16 and that even takes too much time.

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by Jengar

If you really want confusing, how about combining "repechage" and "fencing all places?" Take all the fencers who are in the group just eliminated and then fence to all places within each losing group. In a large tournament, this would be virtually impossible. USFA puts out a bracket to fence all places in a group of 16 and that even takes too much time.

Fencing to all places can be a lot of fun, though. Years ago, my daughters' club held a weekend camp, with a lot of invited fencers from out of state. In the individual competition on the Saturday (we did weird things I don't remember with teams on the Sunday), we had 55 fencers who started out with a round of pools. Then we divided everybody up by their pool results into three groups of 16, which each fenced to all places to give us the 1–16, 17-32, and 33-48, and the leftover 7 fenced another pool, which we used for the 49–55 placement.

It was a hoot running the tables. Fencers who'd lost twice couldn't believe they were still in when we gave them another bout slip. "No, you've got to lose FOUR times before you're out!" we'd tell them. It made for a long, long day, but it gave everybody tons of fencing and was a lot of fun.

Pretty good pot luck dinner afterward, too, as I recall.

Mary

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Chris

Many sports don't really even try to sort this out: Who came in 5th in the NFL last year? No one really cares, but obviously, in our sport, there are ramifications to gaging relative performance.

Many sports DO care about such things.

For instance the NFL, where placement determines draft order (5th last year was the New England Patriots).

-B

[Montoya]

Most experienced fencers don't attach much importance to the place (unless we're talking top 8 in a NAC), and more to the round you went out.

If I ask one of my friends where s/he finished at the Richmond NAC, s/he is more likely to say, "I went out in the round of 64," than "I finished 45th."

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Montoya

Most experienced fencers don't attach much importance to the place (unless we're talking top 8 in a NAC), and more to the round you went out.

If I ask one of my friends where s/he finished at the Richmond NAC, s/he is more likely to say, "I went out in the round of 64," than "I finished 45th."

I'm equally interested in how far the person who knocked me out went.

[edew]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

The only truly fair solution (if you don't like the current method) is to fence out all places. But, that is rarely done because it more than doubles the length of time it takes to run the tournament and is as confusing as repechage.

Fencing out all positions is easier to understand than repechage. Fencing out all positions means if you lose your first bout, you can't take first place eventually. In repechage, you can lose your first bout (in the repechage round, of course) and still find a way to worm your way back to being first at the end.

Fencing out all positions is basically determining the binary number representation of your finish: 00000 is last 00001 is second to last, 00010 is third from bottom, etc.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by HDG

I'm equally interested in how far the person who knocked me out went.

It seems to hurt less when it was the gold medalist who knocked you out.

And then you can play a really silly game of looking where all the people who were in your pool finally finished. Just to satisfy your stubborn excuse that you had the hardest pool of them all.

[Redblade]

It took me at least a year to figure out the logic behind the final placement list, like the original poster. I figured that my 14-15 loss *must* be worth something more than the 1-15 loss of the guy who still managed to finished five places higher than me (in the same bracket). Just didn't make sense.

After a while you learn it doesn't matter so much. As Montoya points out, if you still want some sort of accomplishment marker, generalize within your final bracket -- somewhere between 5th to 8th place, for example, or between 9th to 16th, or 17th to 32nd, etc.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Redblade

It took me at least a year to figure out the logic behind the final placement list, like the original poster. I figured that my 14-15 loss *must* be worth something more than the 1-15 loss of the guy who still managed to finished five places higher than me (in the same bracket). Just didn't make sense.

It's an "elimination" for a reason. Binary outcome. If you're using the poules to seed the tableaux then consistency would suggest that you would use the poules to 'seed' the final rankings.

[downunder]

It's not so much a point made to you, sorry if it appeared patronising.

I expect someone to argue that I'm wrong and I have no idea about fencing and how it should be.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by downunder

sorry if it appeared patronising.

Wow. That's a first. Humility and contrition.

[Cookeit]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

It seems to hurt less when it was the gold medalist who knocked you out.

And then you can play a really silly game of looking where all the people who were in your pool finally finished. Just to satisfy your stubborn excuse that you had the hardest pool of them all.

Hehe, I do the same exact thing!
I always hope that the person who knocks me out wins the tourny,
and not make people think "how did this guy make it this far..".