Junior Team World Championships RESULTS

[Siobhs]

Last results from the Junior Worlds, which finished today (13 April).

Team results (only one bronze medal is awarded after a third place play-off):

Women's Epee
1. CHN Chine
2. RUS Russie
3. GER Allemagne

Men's Epee
1. FRA France
2. RUS Russie
3. POL Pologne

Women's Foil
1. ITA Italie
2. RUS Russie
3. USA Etats-Unis

Men's Foil
1. ITA Italie
2. RUS Russie
3. GER Allemagne

Women's Sabre
1. RUS Russie
2. ITA Italie
3. HUN Hongrie

Men's Sabre
1. KOR Corée du Sud
2. USA Etats-Unis
3. POL Pologne


Final championship medal table (Junior only):
1. RUS 3 4 4
2. ITA 3 3 1
3. CHN 3 2 0
4. USA 1 1 2
5. KOR 1 1 0
6. FRA 1 0 2
7. UKR 0 1 0
8. POL 0 0 3
8. GER 0 0 3
9. HUN 0 0 2
10. SUI 0 0 1

Top-ten nations by points (Junior only):
1. RUS 382
2. ITA 337
3. CHN 317
4. USA 249
5. FRA 226
6. HUN 196
7. POL 193
8. KOR 185
9. GER 184
10. UKR 99

Full results and standings at www.escrime.com or www.escrimetrapani2003.it

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Siobhs" <siobhansilke@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:581d81fe.0304131508.3b241fab@posting.google.c om...
> Last results from the Junior Worlds, which finished today (13
April).

Thanks for posting all this, Siobhan.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Siobhs" <siobhansilke@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:581d81fe.0304131508.3b241fab@posting.google.c om...
> Last results from the Junior Worlds, which finished today (13
April).

Thanks for posting all this, Siobhan.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Siobhs]

"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote in message news:<GAnma.18$r64.9009249@news.netcarrier.net>...
> "Siobhs" <siobhansilke@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:581d81fe.0304131508.3b241fab@posting.google.c om...
> > Last results from the Junior Worlds, which finished today (13
> April).
>
> Thanks for posting all this, Siobhan.


My pleasure Dirk.

Surprised there hasn't been much comment on the championships... what
do rsf readers think of the results?

Siobhán

[Winter Trail]

I was dissapointed the womens sabre team had to meet china first round they
fenced. I heard that the team was really down about it the night before, which
didn't help.

For the most part though, I think all the members to did a great job. This
must be the most medals the US has had in a long time.

[Steve Khinoy]

The results of this year's Junior/Cadets are extraordinary. I remember when
the US had zero, or very rare, international results -- a strong contender
every ten years or so. I hope that we won't get into the mentality that we
are "entitled" to medals.

And thanks again to Siobhan!

--Steve Khinoy

"Siobhs" <siobhansilke@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:581d81fe.0304180020.101642c@posting.google.co m...
> "Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote in message
news:<GAnma.18$r64.9009249@news.netcarrier.net>...
> > "Siobhs" <siobhansilke@ireland.com> wrote in message
> > news:581d81fe.0304131508.3b241fab@posting.google.c om...
> > > Last results from the Junior Worlds, which finished today (13
> > April).
> >
> > Thanks for posting all this, Siobhan.
>
>
> My pleasure Dirk.
>
> Surprised there hasn't been much comment on the championships... what
> do rsf readers think of the results?
>
> Siobhán

[Siobhs]

wintertrail@aol.com (Winter Trail) wrote in message news:<20030418144325.18986.00000148@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> I was dissapointed the womens sabre team had to meet china first round they
> fenced. I heard that the team was really down about it the night before, which
> didn't help.
>


I was surprised too that two such strong teams would meet so early on,
but China had a relatively low seeding because only two fencers took
part in the individual competition at junior level. Their third team
member was a cadet, and they had no sub.

The team seeding is calculated with a very simple formula that's based
on the results of the individual competition: 1 point for first place,
2 points for second and so on. Only the results of the three highest
finishers in the team are added, and then the team with the lowest
total is ranked first. Because there were 60 competitors in the
individual junior women's sabre, China's third fencer, Huang Jialing,
was awarded 61 points.

You can see how the seedings for all team events were calculated by
going to this page <http://fechten.de/deu/modules.php?na...howpage&pid=43>
and selecting the PDF version of the results.

Siobhán

[Siobhs]

siobhansilke@ireland.com (Siobhs) wrote in message news:<581d81fe.0304190529.4407efdb@posting.google. com>...

> You can see how the seedings for all team events were calculated by
> going to this page <http://fechten.de/deu/modules.php?na...howpage&pid=43>
> and selecting the PDF version of the results.


I should also say that there's a full bout-by-bout breakdown of each
match in those PDFs. Very interesting to look at, next best thing to
seeing the match live!

Siobhán

[Fencerbill]

In article <581d81fe.0304190844.414bbda4@posting.google.com >,
siobhansilke@ireland.com (Siobhs) writes:

>
>I should also say that there's a full bout-by-bout breakdown of each
>match in those PDFs. Very interesting to look at, next best thing to
>seeing the match live!

Thank you very much for the reference to the full team match results, it has
been fascinating. You are right, next best thing to being there.

Siobhan, please E-mail me.

Bill Hall

[Carol]

I guess that the FIE thinks that this is the fastest/easiest way that they
can seed the teams -- but it unfairly seeds a team like China who don't
have one of the team members in the Junior competition, only in the Cadet,
which gets penalized by the burden of excess points. I see why they do
this -- it is not like in the Seniors where you go by the team world
rankings, however, someone should consider using the points awarded on the
FIE ranking list for the individual event to seed the teams -- add up the
points earned in the competition, and if a person didn't earn points
because they weren't even IN the competition, nothing gets added, nobody
gets penalized, and highest points is highest seed.

I just quickly did that (it wouldn't take anymore time than what they do
currently, plus, they have several days to accomplish the seeding anyway),
and came up with this seeding:

1.USA 108
2.ITA 76
3.HUN 60
4.RUS 48
5.POL 44
6.KAZ 44
7.CHN 36
8.FRA 16
9.KOR 24
10.GBR 20
11.JPN 20
12.GER 16
13.ESP 12
14.CAN 8
15.UKR 8

In this manner, you give credit for each round the person went out in, and
better reflect a team's strength.

I think that the Senior World Championships were always seeded by
individual results in the individual competition prior to the institution
of the team world cup rankings so that is why they do it this way.
However, there is so much more variability in the Junior ranks, and by
seeding on FIE points awarded for the individual event, it gives a better
seeding.

Even on our division level, we can seed based on finish in the individual
event if the team competition follows it, or, if it is only a team event,
we seed based upon classification of the fencers. The seeding based on
classification is always the better seeding -- almost always by seeding
this way, the final results are the same as the seeding.

Surely, if you are a good team, no matter what your seeding is, you will
progress -- the system doesn't disadvantage you; however, a bad seeding
disadvantages the higher seeded team because they wind up meeting a team in
an earlier round than what is expected to happen.

Not to bring up the entire importance of seeding a competition properly
debate (well, OK, perhaps we can bring it up again -- traffic has been low
<g>) this does bring up the importance of seeding -- we see a difference
in how they seeded the Junior Worlds team competition, and how it would be
different if they went by the points awarded instead of placement, and the
impact to the US team.

In tennis, there are differences in the seeding amongst the Big 4 -- The
Australian Open, US Open and French Open all follow the rankings for
seeding (as all the minor and satellite competitions do). Wimbledon makes
their adjustments. The difference comes in that the French is clay and
Wimbledon is grass. Most of the minor and satellite competitions on these
surfaces attract the players profficient on these surfaces, so the seeding
by ranking works; of course, for the Big 4, all players are attracted, and
must adjust their game to the surface.

For the French Open, there are 2 camps of thought on this -- some people
think that the French Open is exciting entirely because there are so many
upsets; others think that when they seed, that they should take into
account the competitors record on clay and also use that to determine
seeding in order to have a more balanced and competitive competition --
that is what would make it more exciting.

For Wimbledon, they use the rankings to create the initial draw, and then
they look at the draw and see what part of the draw that major competitors
would meet. If they feel that 2 competitors strong in grass meet to soon
in the draw, they change the seeding position of the lower competitor up or
down 1 notch -- just swapping spots -- i.e. does it really matter if you
are seeded 26 or 27? -- no not really, but if we swap you, you have the
potential to meet so-and-so in the 8, but if we don't swap you, we have a
match that occurs in the 32 that should be occuring until the 8. I also
believe that they also do these swaps for protection of nationality -- in
fencing, we only protect nationalities in the pools and not the DEs.

Maybe after this example of the US team, the FIE will make a change for
seeding in Junior World team competitions.

Harold Buck wrote:

> Personally, I think such scoring is asinine *unless* they fence off for
> all places. Think about it: if I finish first, I had to beat the
> second-best fencer at the competition to gain that last point (1 point
> for first versus 2 for second).
>
> Meanwhile, someone in an relatively easy pool who went out in the round
> of 32 could move up 6 places--and do 6 points better--because he or she
> had an indicator that was a touch or two better than some other people.
>
> If you fence off for all places, then such a scoring system is fine.