|
Seeding
Mar 2, 2010 12:11:49 GMT -6
Post by scottbrown on Mar 2, 2010 12:11:49 GMT -6
Hi All,
Can anyone direct me to a good source for better understanding how seeding is generally structured? I understand generally how it works but I'd like to better understand the nuances and, if possible, the history of how/why the current methods came about.
Thanks in advance,
Scott
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 2, 2010 19:03:54 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Mar 2, 2010 19:03:54 GMT -6
I will start by presuming (because of the board it was posted to) we are discussing seeding at modern, competitive fencing events.
The raison d'etre of seeding at a contemporary fencing event is to balance and proportion the strength of the competitors. At a modern event, generally speaking, fencers for that event are broken down into pools of 6-7 fencers each (ideally!). The competitors are sorted by such classifications, if any, they have already earned when they walk in the door.
The USFA uses a letter/year ranking system. A = highest letter classification, followed by B, C, D, E & U (which actually means a fencer who has not yet earned a letter classification).
All "U" fencers are presumed equal.
Those with a letter have it followed by the year they last earned or renewed that letter based on the type/strength/difficulty of the competition in which they earned it. An "A2010" outranks an "A2009" in as much as the first fencer earned/renewed it this year, whereas the latter has not since last year.
As an example, let us say I have a men's epee competition with 18 fencers. I will sort them into 3 pools of six fencers each. In the old days (using an index card for each fencer) I would sort my deck with the strongest fencers with the most recent rankings first and the lowest or (more likely) unclassified fencers at the bottom.
The letter A is the highest ranking. A fencer with a classification of A2010 means they won and/or renewed this A in the year 2010. (If you do not improve or "renew" a letter within four years it degrades on letter).
There are flaws in the system. An "A2007" has not renewed since that date three years back. I classify them above a B2010 because that is the system. However, since that "A" has not turned in an "A" performance since 2007 it is very possible that the fellow with a B2010 is on an upward arc and will later this day prevail over the A2007.
All of these rankings are ONLY used for seeding into the pools. Ultimately, each fencer's performance in their pools will be the sole determining factor in how they are seeded into direct eliminations.
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 4, 2010 12:45:00 GMT -6
Post by fox on Mar 4, 2010 12:45:00 GMT -6
I would add the seeding of the direct elimination bouts, following the pools. Generally, the highest ranked fencer coming out of the pools is paired against the lowest. Second highest against second lowest etc.
For instance, if you have 8 fencers in an event
1st fences 8th 2nd fences 7th 3rd fences 6th 4th fences 5th
Direct eliminations are set up in tables of 8, 16, 32 or etc.
If you had 9 fencers in the pools...
1st place gets a "bye" and does not have to fence anyone in the first table.
2nd fences 9th 3rd fences 8th 4th fences 7th 5th fences 6th
The loser of a Direct Elimination bout is out of the game. The winner advances and fences the victor of one of the other Direct Elimination bouts, and so on, until there is only one victor.
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 4, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Mar 4, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -6
Interestingly, a different thread on the Fencing Net Forum (on running an event without computers) touched on this, using cards for each fencer. I have done this with an index card for each fencer listing their name, ranking & club. For seeding pools this is how the FNet poster put it:
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 4, 2010 13:58:32 GMT -6
Post by scottbrown on Mar 4, 2010 13:58:32 GMT -6
Thank you kindly, gentlemen! All of this has been very helpful and exactly what I was seeking.
If I may ask one other question......
As the historical fencing circles work towards the idea of standardized competitions we constantly examine how other arts/competitions evolved into what they are today. With this in mind, I'm curious if any of you can shed light on how your systems began. I'm particularly curious about the history of the first rankings, how they awarded, and how they evolved into the current structure(s).
Thanks in advance,
Scott
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 4, 2010 14:20:56 GMT -6
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 4, 2010 14:20:56 GMT -6
There's an error in Fox's formula. In a DE table, each level is a power of 2. The person a fencer will meet in that table is equal to his seed minus the table plus one. That is, in the event of 9 fencers, you will use a table of 16 (smallest power of 2 equal to or great than the number of fencers) for the first round of DEs. 9 will fence 8 (16+1-9=8), and 1-7 will get byes. In the event of 117 fencers in a tournament, a table of 128 is used (again, smallest power of 2 equal to or bigger than the number of fencers), and 117 fences 12 (128+1-117) in the first round. Seeds 1-11 get byes. 64 fences 65, 57 fences 72, etc. That's all the math I'm doing. The only thing that throws that off is if a lower seed upsets a higher seed.
Final placing is done by the order of losers in a specific round, highest to lowest. That means (in an event of 32 fencers) if the 1 seed gets knocked out in the 32, the one seed finishes 17th (top loser in the 32) if the 32 seed who had beaten the one then loses in the 16, he or she places 16 (being the lowest seed to lose in that round).
Hope this helps.
Dan
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 4, 2010 23:40:28 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Mar 4, 2010 23:40:28 GMT -6
Dan is correct. As for Scott's last question, I cannot say with certainty what the actual beginnings of this system were, but here is what I know. In 1888 the Amateur Athletic Union was organized. One of the sports that fell under its umbrella was fencing. Under AAU rules, the national championships would be fenced off entirely as Direct Elimination. I do not know how the seeding for this was generated. A substantial number of active fencers preferred a purely round-robin format. In 1891 they organized the Amateur Fencers League of America. They tore fencing away from the AAU, but in short order amicable relations were restored between the two groups. The AFLA continued at the national governing body for fencing and the AAU recognized AFLA championships as the national fencing championships. Over time, and do not know exactly WHEN this occurred, the format evolved to a system whereby the fencers were broekn into pools, a round of round-robin bouts within each pool were held, some percentage (take 80% as an example) is promoted to another round of (fewer) pools with the rest being eliminated. The promotions and eliminations continuing through multiple rounds of ever reducing pools until a magic number of fencers remained (often 16) at which point direct eliminations were held. Today, the most common format at the division level is a round of pools for seeding into Direct Eliminations, with 100% advancing to DEs. BTW, if other forms of fencing are formalizing (foor good and/or ill) and homogenizing, might I suggest they begin making use of one resource that has been VERY helpful (strictly MY opinion) with planning/organizing tournaments... namely AskFREDThis website is used to allow competitors to pre-register (sometimes pre-pay) in advance of the actual event, allowing the tournament organizers to know how many officals and other personnel the event will require.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Mar 5, 2010 8:17:40 GMT -6
Dan is correct. It would have been better had I tried to illustrate a bye with a field of seven fencers. This is what I get for typing while taling to someone else about an unrelated topic.
|
|
|
Seeding
Mar 15, 2010 13:00:29 GMT -6
Post by scottbrown on Mar 15, 2010 13:00:29 GMT -6
Thank you Gentlemen! This provides me enough information to look further on my own. Much appreciated!
|
|
oiuyt
Apprentice
Posts: 9
|
Seeding
May 16, 2010 13:13:59 GMT -6
Post by oiuyt on May 16, 2010 13:13:59 GMT -6
I'm late to the party, but it's worth noting that the algorithm quoted (but not originating) from schlager7 is flawed.
Pool distribution in the case described should start the same, with seeds 1-4 placed 1/pool, but #5 should go in pool 4, #6 in pool 3, and so forth. #8 ends up in pool 1, as does #9, before we start counting back up with #10 in pool 2. This creates a "snake" pattern which is the correct way to distribute the fencers.
-B
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Seeding
May 16, 2010 20:14:56 GMT -6
Post by kon on May 16, 2010 20:14:56 GMT -6
Thank you Gentlemen! This provides me enough information to look further on my own. Much appreciated! If you're still thinking about this, there's a lot to be said for some somewhat old-fashioned formats such as pools all the way up. As recently as 1980, I think, the Olympics were fenced in pools all the way up; Harmenberg won his gold medal in epee in a pool, not in a DE. K O'N
|
|
|
Seeding
Jul 4, 2010 22:35:07 GMT -6
Post by kd5mdk on Jul 4, 2010 22:35:07 GMT -6
Dan is correct. As for Scott's last question, I cannot say with certainty what the actual beginnings of this system were, but here is what I know. In 1888 the Amateur Athletic Union was organized. One of the sports that fell under its umbrella was fencing. Under AAU rules, the national championships would be fenced off entirely as Direct Elimination. I do not know how the seeding for this was generated. A substantial number of active fencers preferred a purely round-robin format. In 1891 they organized the Amateur Fencers League of America. They tore fencing away from the AAU, but in short order amicable relations were restored between the two groups. The AFLA continued at the national governing body for fencing and the AAU recognized AFLA championships as the national fencing championships. I have two things to add to this. One is that according to my memory of a speech by Andy Shaw at the Hall of Fame vote (or maybe banquet) at Summer Nationals last year, the AFLA broke away from the AAU because the AAU hired professional fencers to referee at AAU competitions, and the AFLA founders did not want their amateurism polluted by the presence of professionals. Second, George Masin wrote a short essay on the history of the classification system in the AFLA and USFA that he distributed at the Board meeting at JOs. I have a hard copy somewhere, and I will ask him for an electronic copy and permission to post it here. One bit I remember: When the A, B, C system was first introduced, a committee was form to decide who would receive A and B classifications the first year, and the Division Chairs were asked to name who their C fencers would be. Naturally, this wasn't done very objectively.
|
|
|
Seeding
Jul 17, 2010 16:35:56 GMT -6
Post by kd5mdk on Jul 17, 2010 16:35:56 GMT -6
I obtained a copy of his essay from George Masin and have attached it to this post. I recommend it to anyone interested in fencing history in the US.
Note files expire after going 20 days without being downloaded.[uploadedFiles=1279406090;2]
|
|
|
Seeding
Jul 18, 2010 1:17:21 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Jul 18, 2010 1:17:21 GMT -6
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|