Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

silver2e · 06-06-2008, 08:21 PM

On the FIE site it has information on the "placement and drawing of lots" for individual events. Could someone explain this? The determination of the initial order of fencers seems clear enough, but what does this mean:
"As soon as all the fencers have an initial classification, we will carry out a drawing of lots in pairs, from the first to the last fencer."

http://www.fie.ch/download/homepage/...02008%20OG.pdf

Mr Epee · 06-06-2008, 08:24 PM

It means they randomize seeding in groups of two...

The number one slot could go to either the 1 or the 2 ranked competitor.

The number three slot could go to either the 3 or the 4 ranked competitor

Etc...

KShan5[PrFC] · 06-06-2008, 08:35 PM

My understand is that it's done so that you don't fence the same people that you always fence....but I could be wrong.

Capt. Slo-mo · 06-06-2008, 09:10 PM

They first take the final FIE rankings as of Aug 1, I think I read. Of course this begs the question:

If you've been struggling all season long to get the best seeding and match-ups as possible, it kind of sucks if the randomization messes with the match-up that you would have had, if they'd used the final FIE standings.

fencerbill · 06-06-2008, 09:27 PM

If there was no randomization you might find, for example, the Italians losing to each other to avoid premature meetings. Having 2 countrymen in seeds 1 and 9 is much better than in 1 and 8. Seeds 1 and 9 could both wind up with medals, seeds 1 and 8 can't.

These intricacies do not come out of the blue. As in so many situations, sometimes puzzling details are based on someone in the past playing games.

Capt. Slo-mo · 06-06-2008, 10:21 PM

Except, in that case, 7 and 8 would be randomized, which gives the a chance for double medals. 8 and 9 would have fenced in the 16 to face #1` in the top 8, so the French plan for medal domination wouldn't work anyway.

It's more an exercise in trying to get your hardest perceived match-up as high as possible...although as has been pointed out before: if you're planning on Olympic success, you'd better be prepared to beat everyone, no matter where you face them.

fencerbill · 06-07-2008, 12:35 AM

My made up example was to demonstrate what could happen without randomization.

The randomization makes it harder to play games.

Capt. Slo-mo · 06-07-2008, 04:17 AM

Yeah, maybe so.

It would seem only fair, however, that once the competitors have fought through the last couple of years of World Cup competition and arrived at the final standings only a week before the Games...maybe that's a pretty definitive seeding and they should fence from there.

But I don't make the rules.

Mr.MightyMouse · 06-07-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fencerbill

My made up example was to demonstrate what could happen without randomization.

The randomization makes it harder to play games.

COuld it be that they want to avoid countrymates fencing in the 1st round, and reserve an option to tweak pairings?

nahouw · 06-07-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Yeah, maybe so.

It would seem only fair, however, that once the competitors have fought through the last couple of years of World Cup competition and arrived at the final standings only a week before the Games...maybe that's a pretty definitive seeding and they should fence from there.

But I don't make the rules.

In all World Cups, there is always the randomized seeding of 1-2 so that people aren't always fencing the same people. For the Olympics, they just extend this principle and do this for every two down the line.

Capt. Slo-mo · 06-07-2008, 06:05 PM

Cool. It's their show. In reading the FIE website, they then draw lots all the way down the table, not just the top two or top 8. Interesting.

Yet the team competition does not randomize. Also interesting.

Mr.MightyMouse · 06-07-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nahouw

In all World Cups, there is always the randomized seeding of 1-2 so that people aren't always fencing the same people. For the Olympics, they just extend this principle and do this for every two down the line.

Thanks.

nahouw · 06-07-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Cool. It's their show. In reading the FIE website, they then draw lots all the way down the table, not just the top two or top 8. Interesting.

Yet the team competition does not randomize. Also interesting.

As I had said, they extend the regular World Cup randomization of 1-2 all the way down the line of the tableau. This prevents the same people fencing each other, adding more variety. Prior to the FIE instituting the 1-2 randomization of the World Cups, the same people would fence each other. My coach was a member of the Polish National team in Epee, and throughout his entire career, he never fenced Riboud. I couldn't believe that this could happen; I assumed that after many years of World Cups, he would have fenced him at least once.

For the team competitions, there is no need for this -- it is the team coach's responsibilty to select which fencers are on the team, and obviously, a coach would not select a fencer for that team match that has an obvious difficulty with an opponent.

In addition, for whomever winds up winning the Olympic Gold Medal, it does not matter who their opponent is -- they must beat all their opponents.

nahouw · 06-07-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.MightyMouse

Thanks.

You're welcome

Capt. Slo-mo · 06-07-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nahouw

In addition, for whomever winds up winning the Olympic Gold Medal, it does not matter who their opponent is -- they must beat all their opponents.

Absolutely true. However; every fencer has at least a couple of opponents who gives them trouble each time, yet those opponents can often lose easily to a third fencer.

Some of the standings gaming can be trying to avoid your "problem" fencer until as late as possible, so they have a chance to lose in the earlier rounds before they came up against you.

It's just playing the percentages and hoping you get a little help, but at the end of the day, you've got to believe you can take them all.

nahouw · 06-08-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Absolutely true. However; every fencer has at least a couple of opponents who gives them trouble each time, yet those opponents can often lose easily to a third fencer.

Some of the standings gaming can be trying to avoid your "problem" fencer until as late as possible, so they have a chance to lose in the earlier rounds before they came up against you.

True, but you can not and should not bank on the standings because of the dual pairing randomization, and as the fencer in question you can not bank on that, but rather, have to be prepared to fence EITHER of the fencers in that pairing in the standings. It is not that much more to prepare knowing that your opponent would be either of two fencers that are known via the rankings. One of the things that this system prevents is the standings gaming, and that is an important device in order to have the most level playing field as possible.

Chosing the competitions that you compete in or not, or knowing where you should finish in order to manipulate the rankings for a final season ending ranking that would give you a easy path during the Olympics is precisely why the FIE has extend the regular World Cup 1-2 seed randomization to the full tableasu of the Olympic Games.

Mr.MightyMouse · 06-08-2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nahouw

True, but you can not and should not bank on the standings because of the dual pairing randomization, and as the fencer in question you can not bank on that, but rather, have to be prepared to fence EITHER of the fencers in that pairing in the standings. .

It would just be odd if randomization would create a team mate match up in the first round, as opposed to standard rankings avoiding such an occurence.