93 World Final, Koch vs. Golubitsky

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

looking back that was the stupidest and most untelegenic thing FIE has ever done. Your opponent could out score you and you could still win the bout.

Because people who watch sports on TV do not understand things such as "best of 3", "best of 5" or "best of 7"? Is this why the World Series gets such poor ratings in comparison to fencing's simple "first to 15-point" system?

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

You fence 3, 3 minute periods. Once the three minutes is up there is a one minute break. It's all one bout to 15 broken up into thirds....think hockey.

That may be a good description of the current system however things were a little different back in '93.

For one thing, bouts (and periods within DE bouts) lasted up to six minutes, with a warning at the beginning of the last minute (similar to football's two minute warning). There was also a lot of experimenting with different DE formats in the late 80's and early 90's, including a brief period when DE's were fenced as the best-of-three 5-touch bouts (similar to what is currently used at youth events) rather than as a single 15-touch bout (IIRC there was also a brief period when it was fence to 15, win by 2, with a maximum of 17).

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Because people who watch sports on TV do not understand things such as "best of 3", "best of 5" or "best of 7"? Is this why the World Series gets such poor ratings in comparison to fencing's simple "first to 15-point" system?

What if baseball had best 2 of 3 mini-games between the same teams on the same day with 1 minute breaks between each mini-game and the score reset to 0 after each break? The winner of the mini-games is that day's winner. How do you think TV viewers would like that?

Don't confuse one sports game with a championship series.

If you wanted to make a point you should have said volleyball or tennis.

[srawe]

the old way was not so dissimilar from tennis (best of 5 sets with funny tie-breaking rules)

[oiuyt]

At least our scores increment by one each time.

There's no way a sport where the scores go "love", "15", "30", "40", "game" could ever catch on or become popular with spectators.

-B

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

At least our scores increment by one each time.

There's no way a sport where the scores go "love", "15", "30", "40", "game" could ever catch on or become popular with spectators.

-B

Tennis is popular despite the screwed up scoring system, not because of it.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

What if baseball had best 2 of 3 mini-games between the same teams on the same day with 1 minute breaks between each mini-game and the score reset to 0 after each break? The winner of the mini-games is that day's winner. How do you think TV viewers would like that?

Your point was not "like", it was "understand". Viewers could very easily understand a baseball game that was "Best 5 of 9 innings," for example. Not necessarily the way to go, mind you, but "best X of Y" formats work well in several sports, and are certainly not hard to follow or understand.

[Gav]

Plus "best of x" style competitions are common anyway.

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Your point was not "like", it was "understand". Viewers could very easily understand a baseball game that was "Best 5 of 9 innings," for example. Not necessarily the way to go, mind you, but "best X of Y" formats work well in several sports, and are certainly not hard to follow or understand.

No my point was "stupid and untelegenic", not "understand". Read my first post.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

At least our scores increment by one each time.

There's no way a sport where the scores go "love", "15", "30", "40", "game" could ever catch on or become popular with spectators.

-B

hmm...very interesting... at the turn of the century (1900), fencing and tennis were both equally popular -- what has changed since then? Only thing that I can see is that tennis developed along a path of having a tiered competition structure...

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by nahouw

hmm...very interesting... at the turn of the century (1900), fencing and tennis were both equally popular -- what has changed since then? Only thing that I can see is that tennis developed along a path of having a tiered competition structure...

That is the only thing you can see?

[edew]

He can't see the forest full of Kournikova-bots.