Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Curious as to why they don't flip the semi losers to face those drawn back in from the other finalist.

74 and 86 had the top 3 at their weights on the same side last year.

Yeah it essentially just (loosely) determines the 2nd best guy from your side of the bracket.

 

Im indifferent to whether they should cross bracket or not, but do agree some of the weights really concentrate talent. I wish we had a slightly better seeding system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely correct @gimpeltf.

Annoying as it is they did make it clear that fairness to every country was a priority.

As annoyed as I am by that, I get it... for the Olympics.

Place up to 8th for worlds and I'm happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, nhs67 said:

You're absolutely correct @gimpeltf.

Annoying as it is they did make it clear that fairness to every country was a priority.

As annoyed as I am by that, I get it... for the Olympics.

Place up to 8th for worlds and I'm happy.

Is that really fair though?

I guess random draw (after 4 seeds, at least) is technically fair, but when one side of the bracket is disproportionately stacked, and especially when two top guys meet early, some wrestlers are arbitrarily advantaged, and vice versa.

I'm sure neither pool play nor double elimination line brackets (both with full field seeding) are perfect tournament systems, but both seem fairer, and likelier to put the top wrestlers on the podium, than the current repechage system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whaletail said:

Is that really fair though?

I guess random draw (after 4 seeds, at least) is technically fair, but when one side of the bracket is disproportionately stacked, and especially when two top guys meet early, some wrestlers are arbitrarily advantaged, and vice versa.

I'm sure neither pool play nor double elimination line brackets (both with full field seeding) are perfect tournament systems, but both seem fairer, and likelier to put the top wrestlers on the podium, than the current repechage system.

Fair or not, @gimpeltf brought up an excellent point. The Olympic powers that be made it clear they wanted more countries to have a chance at medaling without having to wrestle too many matches. The current system feeds to that perfectly.

Everyone knows Yazdani was the clear #2 in the world last year as well as the Ruskie the clear #3 despite placing 1, 3, 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cangemi said:

Rather a normal double elimination for one bronze

 

The horse has been beaten to death, double bronze is done for time and to get more DIFFERENT countries medals. This helps us look good for the Olympic people.

I'd be happy if they evened out each side of the bracket instead of lopsided ones they have now....baby steps are better than giant leaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BobDole said:

The horse has been beaten to death, double bronze is done for time and to get more DIFFERENT countries medals. This helps us look good for the Olympic people.

I'd be happy if they evened out each side of the bracket instead of lopsided ones they have now....baby steps are better than giant leaps.

I am sure I can search it, but is there a reason and/or format they follow with that? Drives me nutto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 5:07 PM, nhs67 said:

Curious as to why they don't flip the semi losers to face those drawn back in from the other finalist.

74 and 86 had the top 3 at their weights on the same side last year.

I've thought this for a while...seems like it'd be a simple fix to actually determine the best 4 guys. Maybe too simple for ole UWW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 7:16 AM, nhs67 said:

I am sure I can search it, but is there a reason and/or format they follow with that? Drives me nutto.

This format gets more different countries medals with the randomness of the draw and follow the leader format. This looks great in the Olympic committee's eyes. Remember that baseball and softball were dropped because they said it was dominated by a couple countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BobDole said:

This format gets more different countries medals with the randomness of the draw and follow the leader format. This looks great in the Olympic committee's eyes. Remember that baseball and softball were dropped because they said it was dominated by a couple countries.

Sorry Mr Dole, for that specific question I was referring to why is 2/3rds of the entrants on half the bracket and 1/3rd of the entrants on the other half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Sorry Mr Dole, for that specific question I was referring to why is 2/3rds of the entrants on half the bracket and 1/3rd of the entrants on the other half.

What's interesting is this system (including the repechage) was how the NCAA brackets used to be back in the day, with the notable exception that there was placement for 3rd and 5th and not a double bronze. I asked Stan Dziedzic back in 2013 in Budapest why UWW went this route and surprisingly, while I disagreed, the answer did make sense. The context was I was trying to pitch a U.S. style bracket with byes evenly dispersed and a "double repechage" where losers of the semifinals would wrestle back and create a fuller wrestleback to place to eighth place and create a bracket that would allow countries to wrestle-in for those Olympic berths in the year before the Games.

We evenly distribute byes in the U.S., well, in the second round, that means if you have 24 athletes in a bracket, you've got eight matches in the first round. There will be eight matches where one athlete has had a match and 8 matches where two athletes didn't have a match in that second round. Under the current format, excluding the byes at 1-2-3-4, you'd have one match per round where an athlete has one more bout than his/her opponent. In our system, having one extra match is no big deal. Internationally, they believe in mitigating that unfairness in terms of the draw as much as possible.

With the top four seeds getting a bye in the "qualification" round, it's less likely now that the finalists would have a different number of matches. It's still possible, but less likely than before they seeded the top four and gave them opening-round byes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB, when do you see that the NCAA ever put the byes on one side? Yes, the repechage was similar at times (other than finalizing as you say). 

And, yes, the UWW system would then only ever have at most one bout in each round where one guy had previously wrestled one more than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JasonBryant said:

What's interesting is this system (including the repechage) was how the NCAA brackets used to be back in the day, with the notable exception that there was placement for 3rd and 5th and not a double bronze. I asked Stan Dziedzic back in 2013 in Budapest why UWW went this route and surprisingly, while I disagreed, the answer did make sense. The context was I was trying to pitch a U.S. style bracket with byes evenly dispersed and a "double repechage" where losers of the semifinals would wrestle back and create a fuller wrestleback to place to eighth place and create a bracket that would allow countries to wrestle-in for those Olympic berths in the year before the Games.

We evenly distribute byes in the U.S., well, in the second round, that means if you have 24 athletes in a bracket, you've got eight matches in the first round. There will be eight matches where one athlete has had a match and 8 matches where two athletes didn't have a match in that second round. Under the current format, excluding the byes at 1-2-3-4, you'd have one match per round where an athlete has one more bout than his/her opponent. In our system, having one extra match is no big deal. Internationally, they believe in mitigating that unfairness in terms of the draw as much as possible.

With the top four seeds getting a bye in the "qualification" round, it's less likely now that the finalists would have a different number of matches. It's still possible, but less likely than before they seeded the top four and gave them opening-round byes.

Wow. It makes excellent sense. Absolutely makes sense.

In a system where every match is wrestled in one day, aside for the final, you want wrestlers that are randomly drawn in to be as rested as their opponents, or at least have the opportunity to be as rested, providing they execute in an efficient manner.

I can see how you would disagree with it compared to your 'dub rep' formatting, as I'd prefer something of that sort too.

That being said, I have found inner peace. Appreciate you folks.

@JasonBryant @gimpeltf

and of course you @BobDole as well. I am still devastated we never got the opportunity to glorify our great nation with you as POTUS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system now in place is way better than what FILA had in place where it was a complete blind draw and the losers of the semifinals wrestled for bronze.  I like the current system better.  I like double elimination even more.  What we  have is in between and I think it works well to get to good bronze medallists.  

mspart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

JB, when do you see that the NCAA ever put the byes on one side? Yes, the repechage was similar at times (other than finalizing as you say). 

And, yes, the UWW system would then only ever have at most one bout in each round where one guy had previously wrestled one more than the other.

The first year you did the brackets, 1928.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mspart said:

The system now in place is way better than what FILA had in place where it was a complete blind draw and the losers of the semifinals wrestled for bronze.  I like the current system better.  I like double elimination even more.  What we  have is in between and I think it works well to get to good bronze medallists.  

mspart

Well, the losers of the semifinals still wrestle for bronze, but the current style of bracketing, is still similar to when they made the wholesale rule changes in 2005. The blind draw with repechage for double bronze was put into place in 2005, where we had pool systems prior to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...