How are final rankings calculated at an event?

[Bugaboo]

Obviously, the #1 fencer wins all his DE bouts, and #2 is right behind in the next (micro)bracket. #3 and #4 are often counted as a tie.

How about positions #5-8? I'd think that the guy who lost 15-14 in that particular DE bracket would get a higher placement than the guy who scored only 3 points in his equivalent bout. That would make sense, anyway.

But then when I look at positions #9-16, or the next bracket down at #17-32, those DE brackets don't seem to be reorganized to represent final bout scores. What's up with that?

And is there an official (USFA) policy regarding final DE placements?

[darius]

The official (FIE) policy is you're ranked how you're seeded from the pools...so if we both go out in the round of 8 and you're seeded higher than me, you'll get a higher place.

...all the more reason to make sure that you get every touch you possibly can, and don't let anybody score on you in the pools.

darius

[Purple Fencer]

I think the way I've seen it work (although I could be wrong) kinda goes like this:

Let's say you come out of pools in 7th place overall in an event with 32 people. You win your 1st DE and are now in the round of 16. Overall, you're still in 7th place 'cause yer still winning.

Your next DE don't go so well and you lose, so instead of going into the round of 8 in 7th place, you end up finishing in 9th because you were the highest seed to get knocked out. The next highest seed (let's say it was the 12th place guy) would come in 10th. If, however, the #1 seed lost in the round of 16, he'd take 9th.

Clear as mud yet? Boils down to the losers in each round are placed based on their seeding going into that round. The number of touches scored has no impact.

------------------
Sam Signorelli -- Boldly going forward...'cause I can't find reverse!

[Bugaboo]

OK. I get it. Easy enough to understand, too.

Still doesn't seem right, though.

[edew]

Final placements in the round of 8, 16, 32, etc., are determined by your initial seed coming out of the pools. It's right, if you think about it. If everyone does what they're supposed to do, based on their results from the pools, they should finish exactly as their seed, and the algorithm does that.

[Bugaboo]

Originally posted by edew:
... If everyone does what they're supposed to do, based on their results from the pools, they should finish exactly as their seed, and the algorithm does that.

There's an 'IF' though. IF everyone fenced according to their original seeding prior to the pools themselves, we would have no need for a competition.

On any particular day in any particular competition, though, an A-rated fencer might make a few mistakes and an unrated fencer can prove that he's getting better. It seems a shame to dismiss those fluctuations at the D.E. level. After all, the pools themselves might be unbalanced.

[oiuyt]

problem with doing the other way proposed here is (at least) two-fold... one, match-up problems get magnified (ie if fencer A does worse against the style of fencer B than she does against the style of fencer C. At least in pools there're a bunch of different opponents and styles), two, I personally don't really care whether I win 15-2 or 15-10... both are wins, neither puts me at much risk of losing. If I have no incentive for blowing someone out our score isn't an accurate measure of our respective abilities.

-B

------------------
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

All your music are belongs to us- RIAA

[edew]

The pools are supposed to be optimally balanced (i.e., as balanced as they can get).

Also, whatever algorithm you use, you should agree that IF everyone were to finish according to their seed, then they should finish ranked according to their seed. If not, what incentive is there for someone to do better?

I once discussed the seeding and final result system with someone unfamiliar with fencing. She asked why doesn't the No. 1 seed fence the No. 2 seed immediately. Well, if so, what incentive is there for anyone to be seeded No. 1 or No. 2? If I can *lose* a couple of bouts to get me into an easier bracket, why should I work hard to win bouts and get screwed?

Of course, one could get screwed by doing well and get seeded in a bracket with someone who one has trouble with, but that's a specific person's issue, and nothing to do with the seeding arrangement.

[BarryTice]

In a tournament I was in last fall, in the pool I was in, highly-rated fencer Otto stomped everyone in the pool except unrated fencer Guy who beat Otto 5-0. Every other fencer in the pool beat Guy.

When I asked Guy about this, disparity, he said, "When it works, it works."

If Otto had faced Guy in the first round of a DE table, the better, more-rounded fencer could very well have been eliminated.

Logistically it would be harder (making sure there were enough strips, officials, and time at local events), but I think a double-elimination format would be better for the sport, even if the elimination bouts had to be cut to 10 points for timing considerations.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

-- b.r.t.

p.s. For what it's worth, my understanding of the USFA rules is that if two people have tied indicators coming out of the pools, they are placed randomly with respect to each other in the DE seed. If they are both eliminated in the same DE round later, they are considered to have tied in the event, both earning whatever rating may be appropriate for that place.

[MHS Fencer]

Double elimination, that reminds me of repchage. Although this is only used in the Cadet and Junior age brackets at nationals it is often nice. It's helped me work my way up in a couple of tournaments (and got me a nice shiny medal) but it also prevented me from qualifying for Div 1-A last year(we ran senior sectionals with repechage, so it's not just cadet and junior afterall).

I personally like the single elimination system, I'm not particularly sure why, but it just seems to streamline the tournament. Repechage brackets can become unwieldly and termendously confusing, although after extensive fexposure to them I think i can figure out what's going on. I'm fine with the way things are in most tournaments, I've never made the top 48 of a Div I NAC so I'm not familiar with that format, but I like the straight direct elimination, and it seems to work nicely for world class fencers, so why not everybody else?

-Ian

[Bugaboo]

Single-elim. structure works fine for me. I think the brackets in the DE tree are simple to follow and ultimately lead the strongest fencers to face each other near the end.

The only issue that doesn't sit well is the placement within a particular bracket. For example, two bouts within the same DE bracket: Fencer #30 vs. Fencer #3, and Fencer #17 vs. Fencer #16.

In the 30-vs.-3 bout, a low-rated fencer taps into long frustrating months (years?) of training and finally enters The Zone against a B-rated fencer of impressive skill, losing his bout but still making an impressive showing of 13-15 touches.

Meanwhile, across the arena in the 16-vs.-17 bout, one of the competitors completely loses his temper, or his focus, or simply decides it's time to goof off, and he loses 2-15 touches.

When it's all over, however, Fencer #17 (from the initial pool seeding) is going to be placed much higher than Fencer #30.

Some of you may say that the guy who placed 17th is going to win more events over the entire season than the 30th guy, and that his placement at this one event is therefore justified.

On the other hand, each bout is a singular event that deserves to be recognized because it DOES help comprise the overall picture of a longer series of competitions. Who is to say that one bout is an aberration and should be summarily dismissed?

(shrug) I expect no converts here. The system is as it is, and will always be. Winners are rewarded and losers simply have to try harder.

Thanks for your consideration.


------------------

[darius]

> Winners are rewarded and losers simply
> have to try harder.

Exactly!!

In any sporting event, you're really leading up to the final. I've always viewed final placements to be a bit silly, honestly, and I don't draw distinction between finishing 5th and 8th -- I'll tell my coach that I went out in the round of 8.

There are always wild cards, but instead of tying to come up with those "what-if" scenarios, look at a more common scenario: in a huge national tournament, Fencer A rocks his pool, and B does relatively well, but not great. They both make it to the round of 8, before they're stomped on by Gabe and Jeremy Sinkin.

Although B may have had to fence harder and better, to get to that round, there can be no question that A was winning bouts more consistently. So if you look at it from a pure win-loss ratio, A was the superior COMPETITOR, that day.

B may even be a better fencer, and trounce A in practice all the time, but I don't think that he deserves a higher final placement.

Same with your 30-3, 16-17 example. If Fencer #30 hadn't fenced poorly in the pools, his burst of pure athletic godliness would mayhap have carried him another round, and thus ranked him well above the goofball who dropped the 16-17 bout. Unfortunately, he did not. Remember, he's not being seeded by his low-ranking, but by his performance in the pools.

darius

[This message has been edited by darius (edited 05-11-2001).]

[Bugaboo]

re "Instead of tying to come up with those "what-if" scenarios...": I've seen it happen. Twice.

And if you think goofing off and losing 3-15 justifies a higher final placement than the guy who concentrates and wins 13 points, then you've got a different perspective of success than me.

To each his own, eh?

[BarryTice]

In a perfect world, when we're paid to fence and don't have to waste our time with frivolous activities like going to work, we'll have enough time for better tournaments. I recommend a 5-touch double round robin -- everyone fences everyone twice. Percent-wins and indicators from this would be a pretty good indication of relative skill among contenders.

Sure, it would take two weeks to hold a tournament of any size, but as long as I'm dreaming...

My fencing club helped with organizing and running the finals for the Olympic modern pentathlon trials in the mid '90s. I seem to remember they had about 20 competitors and did a double round robin one-touch, two-minute bouts (that never lasted two minutes, of course). I think we had six or seven strips set up, meaning 60 or 70 bouts per strip (average). It was a long couple of days.

-- b.r.t.

[arcon]

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: arcon ]

[edew]

Say there are 24 total fencers in the tableau. Number 1 should fence Number 32, but there doesn't exist a Number 32 seed fencer. So Number 1 gets a bye to the next round. Number 2 should fence Number 31, but likewise, Number 31 doesn't exist either, so Number 2 gets a bye to the next round. Going down the line, we get to Number 9 who should fence Number 24 (the numbers should add up to 33, which is 32+1, for the table of 32). Since there is a Number 24 fencer, Numbers 9 and 24 will fence each other in the round of 32, and so Number 9 doesn't get a bye.

What you *don't* want to do is say, #1 fences #24, #2 fences #23, and so on. Because now, you'll have twelve matchings. For one thing, if you keep halving it, you'll get 12, then 6, then 3. Then, uh-oh. How do you resolve the three?

[Rick]

Edew: good explanation

I guess that's why in our division qualifier (18 fencers) we practically had fencers 1 to 14 with byes as we watched 18 v. 15, and 17 v. 16 fight for the remaining 2 seeds.

Very interesting...