PDA

View Full Version : Aldershot



DrT
-19th January 2004, 12:09
Anyone else here go the Aldershot or know the results?

Good competition for me - made it through a round of DE for the first time in the epee :)

Boo Boo
-19th January 2004, 12:18
For men's foil, I hear:
- 1st Sam Johnson
- 2nd David Riseley
- 3rd= David Mansour
- 3rd= Sam Stockley

Also making last 8, Nick Payne and ChubbyHubby :)

Boo
(was going to go and watch the Men's Foil, but stayed at home to rest sprained ankle... :( ).

The Little Un
-19th January 2004, 13:43
I was going too Boo Boo but the men decided not to enter from my club in the end.

Best wishes,
Judy

Boo Boo
-19th January 2004, 13:55
From what I hear, the foil was rather disorganised: 9am check-in closed, poules didn't get going until 10.15/10.30. Poule list wasn't put up (poules were only called one at a time), so when they called one of the last poules they found out that they had left someone out and put him into an existing poule that had nearly finished...

Still, would have liked to have been there to cheer people on :)

Boo

DrT
-19th January 2004, 14:21
Oh dear! I assumed it was just the epee that was disorganised. I think they entered some results from the poules incorrectly and didn't notice until after the first round of DE. This meant there was a huge wait for the L64 while they sorted it out. I presume this meant that some people had the wrong opponent in the L128...

Military precision, eh?

Boo Boo
-19th January 2004, 14:26
Some interesting refereeing too, I hear.

However, it is very nice of the armed services to arrange the competition - it can't be easy (small venue etc. - no room to hold any women's events when they only have 8 pistes total...).

Boo

Dave Hillier
-19th January 2004, 14:43
Oh dear! I assumed it was just the epee that was disorganised. I think they entered some results from the poules incorrectly and didn't notice until after the first round of DE. This meant there was a huge wait for the L64 while they sorted it out. I presume this meant that some people had the wrong opponent in the L128...

From what I remember a 5:0 victory had been entered as 5:4 from one of the poule sheets (or some thing similar I know that some one was out by 4 points) . This caused some one to move from the low 20s to the high 20s in the seeding. Their opponent who was cut also moved up but thankfully was still in the cut.

Does any one know why they introduced a cut (the bottom 20 % ) ?

Dave
(who was there both days and apears to have forgoten how to fence foil)

Insipiens
-19th January 2004, 15:22
As far as I recall (caveat lector), the last 8 for the MF included the following (*in no particular order*)

Mansour
Riseley
Stockley
Johnson
Chang
West
Macaffrey
Payne

They did not put the 20% cut into effect for the MF (71 entries, and a full L64 for the DE). I understand that the last 20% cannot score ranking points so may be the confusion arose there.

As competitors all have to sign off on the poule results any mistakes should be identified at that point.

I agree the poules could have been a little more organised, but given the space it is forgiveable. Sun-glasses for next year though.

clockity
-19th January 2004, 15:29
Originally posted by Boo Boo
From what I hear, the foil was rather disorganised: 9am check-in closed, poules didn't get going until 10.15/10.30. Poule list wasn't put up (poules were only called one at a time), so when they called one of the last poules they found out that they had left someone out and put him into an existing poule that had nearly finished...


One would think though that the two pool sessions would have been divided equally for foil into 16 pools of roughly 6 instead of the 11 pools of 7 fencers though. I think that was my gripe of the day. I think the exceptionally late addition was added to a pool of 7 who were on their last two fights. I thonk that one of the other pools only had 6 in it, and would have made more sense to add the late entrant to that pool instead.


Originally posted by Boo Boo
Some interesting refereeing too, I hear.

However, it is very nice of the armed services to arrange the competition - it can't be easy (small venue etc. - no room to hold any women's events when they only have 8 pistes total...).


People kept telling me that it is normally a well organised competition and the usual organiser is on a sabatical.

Still, it was a good experience. I think I met some forum members too. Unfortunately I was not quite on "my game" on the day, and wasn't placing the point on the target properlly. This resulted in a bad performance in my pool. Oh well, there's always Slough. Might join DrT in entering the Epée instead of the Foil this time though...

Boo Boo
-19th January 2004, 15:38
If there were 71 entries, you wouldn't want 16 poules (your poules would have 4 or 5 people in each - very undesirable).

Poules of 7 are very good, poules of 6 ok, 5 or anything smaller gets bad (tends to make things less even, fair and makes any mistakes more disasterous...)

It's a shame the way that they organise Slough - most competitions you could enter both the men's foil and the men's epee (at Slough they are on the same day).

Sorry you didn't have a good day, hope Slough works out better for you :)

Boo

Insipiens
-19th January 2004, 15:40
I thought there were 6 poules of 6 (36) and 5 poules of 7 (35), originally down. There seemed to be one poule of 6 where somebody did not turn up. Don't the rules on organising competitions require as many poules of 7 as possible, with the rest being of 6?

Dave Hillier
-19th January 2004, 15:45
They did not put the 20% cut into effect for the MF (71 entries, and a full L64 for the DE). I understand that the last 20% cannot score ranking points so may be the confusion arose there.


In the epee there were 98 entrants. After the poules the bottom 20 were cut and an incomplete 128 was then run. This seems a little harsh especially as there wasn't a plate.

DrT
-19th January 2004, 15:46
Originally posted by Insipiens
They did not put the 20% cut into effect for the MF (71 entries, and a full L64 for the DE). I understand that the last 20% cannot score ranking points so may be the confusion arose there.
yes, but someone who has a poor poule could still make the L64 if they are given a chance in a DE. I can only assume the organisers wanted to save time. As someone who has recent experience of missing a cut, I think its a shame when they do that. The people who get cut are the ones who are coming for experience, which they are then deprived of.


Originally posted by Insipiens
Sun-glasses for next year though.
I thought I would spend some time polishing my guard, then use it to reflect the glare into my opponent's eyes!

Rdb811
-19th January 2004, 16:02
Originally posted by Insipiens
I thought there were 6 poules of 6 (36) and 5 poules of 7 (35), originally down. There seemed to be one poule of 6 where somebody did not turn up. Don't the rules on organising competitions require as many poules of 7 as possible, with the rest being of 6?

In practise it's up to the organizers.

Don't forget that organizer's can off days too, just like fencers.

srb
-19th January 2004, 19:11
Originally posted by Insipiens

They did not put the 20% cut into effect for the MF

They announced that there were about 80 fencers, and 20% would be cut. i.e. 80 - 20 % = 64. Which is sort off what they did. They cut down to a complete L64.

I agree with Dave that it was a bit harsh, especially for the junior fencers, as an incomplete L128 wouldn't have taken very long, and it would then have meant that everybody would have had a DE fight.

The delays in the foil were caused by a flurry of late entries, in counjunction with what I expect everybody worked out, that a top seed must have been given a ranking of 999 by mistake.

srb

clockity
-20th January 2004, 09:12
Originally posted by Boo Boo
If there were 71 entries, you wouldn't want 16 poules (your poules would have 4 or 5 people in each - very undesirable).

Poules of 7 are very good, poules of 6 ok, 5 or anything smaller gets bad (tends to make things less even, fair and makes any mistakes more disasterous...)

It's a shame the way that they organise Slough - most competitions you could enter both the men's foil and the men's epee (at Slough they are on the same day).

Sorry you didn't have a good day, hope Slough works out better for you :)

Boo

I see. I've not been to too many competitions and do not know the optimum pool size. I was a bit fed up and had a bit of a rant about having to wait so long for my pool to start. Then my rather abysmal results didn't help my mood.

Anyway, on a side note I'm now undecided on what weapon to fence at Slough, I guess I'll wait to see how I go in both weapons tomorrow. I did seem to re-find my point placement last night which I was missing all Saturday. Maybe I need to relax more and change (or develop) a competition mindset...:rambo:

As DrT notes, its all about gaining experience. I'll decide tomorrow night on what to do at Slough... choices choices...

tigger
-20th January 2004, 09:28
I heard that the organisers mistook Mike Barnett's little bro for Mike himself (who wasn't there), and put him in as number 3 seed in the pool round!! Whether true or not I don't know...

Boo Boo
-20th January 2004, 10:02
Clockity, you lack of ability to place/fix your point on Saturday may just have been tension: can make you shoulder freeze up or "hook", therefore making it easy to miss... :(. Were you the person who they forgot to seed or were you just in a late poule?

Lucky Robert - makes life easier if you are mistaken for a higher seed... :)

Boo

Prometheus
-20th January 2004, 10:36
Blimey, not much of a NIF this year in the foil -

sort of glad I stayed in bed and didn't bother defending the points from last year....snigger:sleep:

On the downside - as I wasn't there to put Peter out he made the L8! :tongue: :moon:

Dave Hillier
-20th January 2004, 11:19
The results are up

http://www.britishfencing.com/results04.html

DrT
-20th January 2004, 11:48
Where do you find out what the NIF is?

srb
-20th January 2004, 12:13
At this moment in time you have to work it out for yourself.

Without checking since the results are up, I worked out that the NIF for the foil was 32.

You have to follow the guidelines in:

http://www.foilcommittee.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/international-rules/SENIOr-ranking-2003-4-vers2.htm

and then check the fencers off from last months rankings:

http://www.foilcommittee.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rankings/men_sen_rank_pos.htm

And if you're really sad, you can look at who fenced, and who didn't fence using the full spreadsheet:

http://www.foilcommittee.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rankings/men_sen_rank.htm

to try and work out what effect your result has on your own ranking.

srb (sadder than a sad person from planet sad)

Dave Hillier
-20th January 2004, 12:19
I thought that it was based on the ranking on the 1st of septtember (or march) rather than the most recent one.


22. For HOME competitions the grading multiplier, for the first part of the season, will be calculated on the basis of the number of fencers who are taking part who are in the current top 50 of the British Ranking on 1st September each year and the multiplier to be used will be found by adding to an initial multiplier of 1 the following numbers:

pinkelephant
-20th January 2004, 12:20
You're right - currently the 1st September list is used to calculate the NIF

clockity
-20th January 2004, 12:45
Originally posted by Boo Boo
Clockity, you lack of ability to place/fix your point on Saturday may just have been tension: can make you shoulder freeze up or "hook", therefore making it easy to miss... :(. Were you the person who they forgot to seed or were you just in a late poule?

Lucky Robert - makes life easier if you are mistaken for a higher seed... :)

Boo

I was just in a late poule (I'll even spell it right this time), all that warming up beforehand wasn't much use by the time I got around to actually fence. I think I really need to relax more when fencing. I was a bit tense in the poule. Oh well, I'll try and take your advice and sort my game out for next time. At the moment, maybe it will be foil, will decide tomorrow.

They didn't seem to seed me; but then again, the seedings probably don't go nearly low enough down the list for where my current ability lies!

Just looked at the foil committee listings (that srb posted a link for), and I'm down representing the wrong club and am doing worse than last year (which wasn't very good)... :eek:

DrT
-20th January 2004, 13:14
Originally posted by srb
At this moment in time you have to work it out for yourself...

You have to follow the guidelines ...

and then ...

And if you're really sad, you can look at ...

to try and work out what ...


Er, thanks :grin: I think I'll wait for the updated rankings!

DrT (slacker than a slack person from planet slack)
__________________
Think, before someone does it for you! Unless they'll work it out for you at the end of the month anyway so there's really no need to put yourself out :confused:

Prometheus
-20th January 2004, 13:57
Originally posted by srb
At this moment in time you have to work it out for yourself.

Without checking since the results are up, I worked out that the NIF for the foil was 32.



32!

SRB I am dissapointed in you, try the following (only the top 10):

name Rank02/03 points
JOHNSON Sam 36 1
RISELEY David 5 6
MANSOUR David 3 6
STOCKLEY Sam 75 0
PAYNE Nick 10 6
MCCAFFERY Peter 31 1
WEST Phillip 19 1
CHANG Dominic 42 1
ROBBINS Pat 58 0
QUESTIER Micheal 25 1
23

Add one for being an open and I get 24 as the NIF for this year.

rory
-20th January 2004, 14:05
WEST Phillip 19 1

Should be 3 for a top 20 fencer.
So 26.

;)

Prometheus
-20th January 2004, 14:10
grrrr - damn

OK Rory - trying to work and teach SRB how to count at the same time - it's not so easy. :dizzy:

Boo Boo
-20th January 2004, 14:14
Originally posted by Prometheus
trying to work and teach SRB how to count at the same time - it's not so easy. :dizzy:

Careful, he will take your ankle out.... :(

Boo
(still suffering - following spraining the same ankle in her sleep last night :( )

Prometheus
-20th January 2004, 14:24
Originally posted by Boo Boo
(still suffering - following spraining the same ankle in her sleep last night :( )


How was that! Footsiework with Chubbyhubby?

Naughty, naughty

Children , cover your eyes :eek:

Boo Boo
-20th January 2004, 14:31
No!!! We are married now, we have seperate beds in seperate rooms... I don't believe in footsie after marriage! Good heavens!

Boo
(I just flexed my foot - can't remember whether I flexed up or down - in my sleep and felt this ripping sensation and pain... *sigh* :( ).

ChubbyHubby
-20th January 2004, 14:32
Originally posted by Prometheus
How was that! Footsiework with Chubbyhubby?

Naughty, naughty

Children , cover your eyes :eek:

nah, she probably tried to kick me in her sleep.

Prometheus
-20th January 2004, 14:44
Originally posted by Boo Boo
(I just flexed my foot - can't remember whether I flexed up or down - in my sleep and felt this ripping sensation and pain... *sigh* :( ).

I hear they can do wonderful things with prosthetics now.......:rolleyes:

Sorry , that was a little mean of me - but I can't help it!!!!!

srb
-20th January 2004, 14:45
Originally posted by Prometheus
grrrr - damn

OK Rory - trying to work and teach SRB how to count at the same time - it's not so easy. :dizzy:

Now Prometheus at least I can count and read. If you'd read the thread properly you realise I was just reading the wrong month i.e last months ranking.

So unlike you I can count, and unlike you I can read - I just don't know what I'm doing! Being confused is a privilege of the elderly!!!

srb

Boo Boo
-20th January 2004, 14:48
Originally posted by Prometheus
Sorry , that was a little mean of me - but I can't help it!!!!!

That's alright, mock the aflicted... :(

Pick on srb instead... :)

srb
-20th January 2004, 14:52
He's done that already. Which probably means he's resting now. He can't take too much excitement or his pace maker breaks down.

srb

DrT
-20th January 2004, 15:00
OK, even though I said I wouldn't, I've had a go at calculating the NIF for the epee, and I get 43. Any volunteers to check my maths/understanding of the calculation?

Dave Hillier
-20th January 2004, 15:21
OK, even though I said I wouldn't, I've had a go at calculating the NIF for the epee, and I get 43. Any volunteers to check my maths/understanding of the calculation?

I made it 44 (then +1 for it being an open) so 45.

You then multiply this by the weighting for where you came (which can be found about half way down here)

http://www.foilcommittee.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/international-rules/Senior-selection-2002-3-final.htm

and ... bloody hell I have just almost tripled my points.

Rdb811
-20th January 2004, 15:38
The one is a de minimis (I'm sure we've had this before) and I can't remember the answer.

DrT
-20th January 2004, 15:51
Blimey, I think I've just moved up about 80 places! :)

Now I've got a ranking that is actually above some people, will it be used when seeding competitions, or do organisers only seed the top X fencers?

Rdb811
-20th January 2004, 15:55
Depends on the competion.

srb
-23rd January 2004, 12:14
From what I have seen, for an Open, the organisers often print off and put on display the previous months (yes previous month, NOT year) ranking. They then use this to try and rank all the fencers in the competition. If a fencer doesn't appear in the national rankings, they will be assigned a ranking of 999.

The highest ranked fenced will the go in poule 1 as fencer 1. The second highest ranked fencer will go in poule 2 as fencer 1, and so on. If there are 10 poules for example, the 11th ranked fencer will go into poule 1 as fencer 2. As a second level of sorting, the organisers may try and keep fencers from the same club apart in the poules. For fencers ranked 999 they will be randomly allocated poules once all the ranked fencers have been allocated.

So DrT, as your ranking improves, your draw in the poules should get better, which should mean your DE draw gets better if you fence up to standard in your poule. Its a bit of a perpetual cycle, and ends up locking a fencer into the points circuit. This gets worse 12 months later when you find you have points to protect from the previous year.

srb (12 months and locked in, at the Hampshire this year)

Boo Boo
-23rd January 2004, 12:20
Competition organisers should always use the most up-to-date (i.e. latest months') rankings to seed a competition. The revious years' should never be used.

However it is the start of season (Sep) or mid-season (Mar) rankings which are used to work out the NIF for the competition.

(all a bit confusing really)

Boo
(been locked into the points thing for years....)

vil
-24th January 2004, 15:17
G'day everyone,

I was at the Aldershot (foil) and was in the pool which had someone added at the last minute. There were only 6 of us in that pool and I think most of the other 6 person pools had finished by that time, which is probably why they chose it. It was all very strange though. As far as I could tell, the guy they added had just turned up late. He should have been scratched but he was one of the army fencers, so they let him join in. I'm only speculating about their reasons though, so I could be wrong. I had a fun day regardless, so I certainly don't have any hard feelings over it.

They did talk about cutting the bottom 20% before the DEs, but I think in the end they just chopped off everyone seeded below 64. They had announced that there were about 80 people fencing, so 20% would have left 64 anyway, but I only see 72 results listed on the BFA website.

Regarding points for the competition, does anyone know whether the top-75% rule gets applied to Aldershot? Looking back to last year it seems that everyone who made the last 64 got some points for it, even though there were only 68 entrants. Will that be the case again? I'm hoping so: I was just outside the top 75%, but within the last 64...

Rdb811
-24th January 2004, 15:49
The limit is the lower of 75% of the field and 64 - i.e. on 72 entries the points start at 54. (no rounding up either)

Effectively this means two wins in the pool (and a win in the DE at larger events).

vil
-24th January 2004, 16:31
Originally posted by Rdb811
The limit is the lower of 75% of the field and 64 - i.e. on 72 entries the points start at 54. (no rounding up either)

Effectively this means two wins in the pool (and a win in the DE at larger events).

That was my understanding of it, too. But if you look at the detailed rankings table here (http://www.foilcommittee.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rankings/men_sen_rank.htm) (warning: large file), points were awarded for everyone who made the last 64 (G. Perrett from Winchester College came 64th and got 61 points for it); yet the results from last year (http://www.britishfencing.com/aldershot2003.html) only list 68 entrants. Hence my confusion...

Rdb811
-25th January 2004, 01:33
The rankings are wrong - on a spot check the same error occurs for the H&W, but not (sadly in your case) for the Sussex.