Ranking after pools, rule changed in the last 15 years?

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by DavidSam0230, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. DavidSam0230

    DavidSam0230 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    The current rule for ranking fencers after a round of pools is to sort them first by percentage of wins (V/M), then indicator (Ind) and finally touches scored (TS). Does anyone know if this rule has changed in the last 15 years, and if so, when?

    Is it possible that at one time, the first number to sort by was place in the pool (Pl) rather than percentage of wins? In other words, all the fencers who finished first in their pool were ranked ahead of all the fencers who finished second in their pool, regardless of percentage of wins.
     
  2. InFerrumVeritas

    InFerrumVeritas DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    58
    Not that I am aware of
     
  3. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    173
    I'm not sure when they changed the third determinant from hits received to hits scored. However, ordering by pool placement probably ended when they stopped running pools all the way to the final, which was much more than 15 years ago -- more like 30.
     
  4. betonniere

    betonniere Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    2
    When I discovered this ancestral custom in archives, I made the assumption that sorting the fencers in the modern way wasn't easily feasable without the help of computers.
    It's only an assumption, but that's my favorite explanation so far.
     
  5. Mac A. Bee

    Mac A. Bee is a Verified Fencing ExpertMac A. Bee Podium

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    154
    We used index cards.
     
    InFerrumVeritas likes this.
  6. DHCJr

    DHCJr Armorer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,405
    Likes Received:
    206
    I have been away from home for a while, so did not have access to my rule books. Before the TOM rule books (1999) the rule was a specific number of fencers were promoted from each pool. As Mac A. Bee stated using index cards made the job relatively simple. At LBI, with many competitions close to 150 and no computers, it was always less than a half-hour between the last pool sheet and the beginning of the next round.

    One rule from the 1995 rule book:
    516) For the first round, the competitors must be seeded. The bout committee alone decides which competitors are to be seeded, it being understood that each national federation must indicate on its entry sheet the seeded order of its fencers, for the information of the bout committee.
    Seeding on principle should not be thought of only in the singular. In each pool there may be first, second, third, etc. seeds.
    From the second round onward, each pool must have the same number of competitors, so as to produce:
    – four quarter-final pools of six fencers, or
    – three pools of six fencers.
    In either case, twelve fencers must qualify to form two semi-final pools of six fencers, each promoting three fencers to the finals.
     
    jdude97 likes this.
  7. dberke

    dberke Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    284
    We certainly have come a long way since then. An organizer that takes anywhere close to 30 minutes to do the turn these days would be terrible in my book. My personal record is 2 minutes and 31 seconds (last pool in to DE slips going out with the refs) in a 112-person epee event. (This was before we added a 10-minute "break" to allow for everyone to check their pool scores.)

    Dan
     
    Inquartata likes this.
  8. Mihail

    Mihail Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    98
    Off topic, but I wonder why, after the introductions of computers, they didn't change Indicator to something like (Indicator/Bouts Fenced) or maybe Ind/(TS+TR). An indicator of +1 should be worth more in a 6-person pool than in a 7-person pool (in this example, of course, it would only affect rankings of fencers with 1.000 or .000 win percentage).

    I know it's trivial, but where would we be without pedantry??
     
    Inquartata likes this.
  9. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    305
    If you have a fencer from a 6 or 7 person pool with a +1 indicator and a .000 win percentage, then you have a serious math error.
     
  10. DHCJr

    DHCJr Armorer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,405
    Likes Received:
    206
    When you did it in under 3 minutes, did you do it by hand filling out a 256 person DE sheet and by hand all the DE score sheets or did you cheat and use a computer. LBI was well attended because they knew they wouldn't be sitting around. Other large tournaments at the same time might take an hour or more. Remember this was without any computer or even a calculator. All we had was a chart with HS/HR.and one with V/M.
     
  11. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    561
    Or all of his bouts went to priority at 0-0, he won one of them 1-0 and he didn’t have priority on the rest and time ran.
     
  12. Mihail

    Mihail Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    98
    Sorry, I meant to say that among two fencers with a 1.000 win percentage, a -8 indicator should be higher ranked in a 7-person pool than in a 6-person pool.
     
  13. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    305
    If you have a fencer with a -8 indicator and a 1.000 win percentage, then you have a serious error. You have two such fencers. Just how much has your bout committee had to drink?
     

Share This Page