Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Two_on_one

Question on World Championship Brackets

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain why they do the brackets at the Worlds the way they do.

 

If you have 16 guys entered, 8 go in the top half and 8 go in the bottom half. That makes sense. But, if you add 3 more guys, they all go in the bottom half. They just keep adding guys in the bottom half all the way up to 24 guys entered, so there are now 8 in the top half and 16 in the bottom half. No seeding either. So a guy in the bottom half has to get buy 15 other guys to make the finals whereas the guy in the top half has to only get by 7 other guys. That is insane. Are they still doing that this year or did this change with the new rules.

 

How smart do these FILA guys have to be to realize that you should place additional guys in the top AND bottom of the bracket to keep them balanced in numbers, just like you would do at any kids tournament. high school tournament, or college tournament.

 

Why do they do this? What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think its because of the way they do wrestle backs. the idea being you want a few pig tails per half of each bracket because 3rd place is really 2nd best of one half of the bracket, and you want those halfs to be as even as possible.

 

tough to explain and i dont like it either but there is some logic behind. i just dont see it as being the best alternative. id rather they go back to pool wrestling. but maybe there was a good reason im not aware of that they ditched that system too.

 

what i really wish was that some of these international tournaments would switch things up. whats the harm in experimenting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I heard a specific rationale to the way byes (pigtails) are split but I believe it's to minimize the differential in time last wrestled for the next bouts. If you split the byes the way we do here one guy has had a lot more rest than the other. This way this only happens in at most one bout on the championship side per round. And similarly all the way through as guys wrestle each other they have had the same number of previous bouts.

Nobody has to get by 15 other guys to get to the finals just 4 in this case. The top half 3.

They've never done seeding so that explains that- although didn't they just now add a small level of separation of past placers?

That having been said, I suspect another factor as to symmetry internationally is that they continued old habits from the old single pool system where as people were drawn they were simply put in at the bottom of the list as it grows.

You have to think of why we do it the way we do it here. Having worked with the old bracket master himself, Bob Dellinger, I realized that a number of the rules we have in place have less to do with math and more to do with readability on old school hand written paper brackets. Brackets were easier to read when byes were spaced out mathematically. It's less of an issue nowadays with computer generated brackets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right, it minimizes the times you have people with byes wrestling people who've already had a match.

 

but without seeding it does create more lopsided brackets. whether or not they have to face each other, one half of the bracket can have twice as many people in it than the other, meaning youre twice as likely to draw a tougher opponent.

 

in a 24 person weight, the guy in the 8 person side has a 33% chance of facing Yazdani or Burroughs where the guy in 16 person side has a 66% chance of seeing him before the finals. this is compounded by every other top competitor, making it much tougher to medal in the larger half than the smaller half, especially in the worlds when the talent spread from the worst wrestler to the best is so high.

 

round robins is the way to go. more matches and space them out over a week. change it up for the Olympics if you have to but than change back for the the world championships and make it a better, more marketable event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly JH!

 

If you have a 24 man bracket and there are 9 returning medalist randomly drawn, odds are that 6 will end up in the bottom bracket and 3 will end up in the top. It is hard to believe that educated people think this is a good way to set up a World Championship.

 

You could argue that this doesn't really matter for determining the champion (which it actually does matter), but this has huge implications for silver and bronze medalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh right, it minimizes the times you have people with byes wrestling people who've already had a match.

 

but without seeding it does create more lopsided brackets. whether or not they have to face each other, one half of the bracket can have twice as many people in it than the other, meaning youre twice as likely to draw a tougher opponent.

 

in a 24 person weight, the guy in the 8 person side has a 33% chance of facing Yazdani or Burroughs where the guy in 16 person side has a 66% chance of seeing him before the finals. this is compounded by every other top competitor, making it much tougher to medal in the larger half than the smaller half, especially in the worlds when the talent spread from the worst wrestler to the best is so high.

 

round robins is the way to go. more matches and space them out over a week. change it up for the Olympics if you have to but than change back for the the world championships and make it a better, more marketable event.

 

i wasn't arguing in favor of no seeding just saying that's how it's always been to my knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh right, it minimizes the times you have people with byes wrestling people who've already had a match.

 

but without seeding it does create more lopsided brackets. whether or not they have to face each other, one half of the bracket can have twice as many people in it than the other, meaning youre twice as likely to draw a tougher opponent.

 

in a 24 person weight, the guy in the 8 person side has a 33% chance of facing Yazdani or Burroughs where the guy in 16 person side has a 66% chance of seeing him before the finals. this is compounded by every other top competitor, making it much tougher to medal in the larger half than the smaller half, especially in the worlds when the talent spread from the worst wrestler to the best is so high.

 

round robins is the way to go. more matches and space them out over a week. change it up for the Olympics if you have to but than change back for the the world championships and make it a better, more marketable event.

 

i wasn't arguing in favor of no seeding just saying that's how it's always been to my knowledge

 

cool i gotcha. my response also may not of been clear. i meant 'oh right' as in 'oh right i should have remembered that point, good call', not sarcastically like 'oh right but who cares'. sorry if it came across as the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh right, it minimizes the times you have people with byes wrestling people who've already had a match.

 

but without seeding it does create more lopsided brackets. whether or not they have to face each other, one half of the bracket can have twice as many people in it than the other, meaning youre twice as likely to draw a tougher opponent.

 

in a 24 person weight, the guy in the 8 person side has a 33% chance of facing Yazdani or Burroughs where the guy in 16 person side has a 66% chance of seeing him before the finals. this is compounded by every other top competitor, making it much tougher to medal in the larger half than the smaller half, especially in the worlds when the talent spread from the worst wrestler to the best is so high.

 

round robins is the way to go. more matches and space them out over a week. change it up for the Olympics if you have to but than change back for the the world championships and make it a better, more marketable event.

 

It didn't come across that way. It was more that I realized the way I phrased the seeding point may have sounded like I approved of it.

 

i wasn't arguing in favor of no seeding just saying that's how it's always been to my knowledge

 

cool i gotcha. my response also may not of been clear. i meant 'oh right' as in 'oh right i should have remembered that point, good call', not sarcastically like 'oh right but who cares'. sorry if it came across as the latter.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...