# Bracket Hell and the Perversion Potential of the Current Format



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Yeah Larry. That most likely happened too. Whoops seven. Honest mistake🙄🙄

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

That only works if you know where everybody else on the field is and what they will shoot for the last end.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

They have internet access.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm thinking the odds are being stacked against USA here. It's bad when dirty tactics can influence medals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mengtian (May 5, 2016)

Ever watch short track speed skating in the Olympics.....that is even more pathetic as far as manipulating the system


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

And another reason pure score should matter. 😛😛😛😛😛

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Mengtian said:


> Ever watch short track speed skating in the Olympics.....that is even more pathetic as far as manipulating the system


Very true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Well, that's like saying a "Hail Mary pass", or "backwards lateral" is a "Dirty tactic". It certainly is unexpected, but you take a lot of Risk doing something like that.

Purposely shooting a bad End is a big Gamble, as it sets you up to shoot against someone better (better than if you had shot a higher ranking score) in your first OR. Your calculation is also dependent on others not doing the same. If you're willing to take that Risk, I don't see that as a "dirty tactic". It's a strategic gamble.

I think they could increase the Risk of such a Gamble by having a "Cut" after Qualifications. Right now only 64 people shoot Qualification, and so they all go on to the OR round. Open up Qualification to 80 or 100 people with a Cut to 64, and see how many people want to purposely throw a bad end.

Brent


----------



## AR720 (Jun 28, 2016)

Taylor Worth (AUS) was in the running for third or fourth going into the final end, and ended up where he was only because he missed an arrow on the last end. His original placement would have pushed the two Koreans' placements down.

Not saying it's impossible the Koreans (whether it's the athletes, coaches, or staff) kept track of all this as the final end was happening, did the math, and then told Lee Seungyun to plant a 7...but it seems very unlikely.


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

AR720 said:


> Taylor Worth (AUS) was in the running for third or fourth going into the final end, and ended up where he was only because he missed an arrow on the last end. His original placement would have pushed the two Koreans' placements down.
> 
> Not saying it's impossible the Koreans (whether it's the athletes, coaches, or staff) kept track of all this as the final end was happening, did the math, and then told Lee Seungyun to plant a 7...but it seems very unlikely.


Here's the longer version of exactly this. Evidently this is how I'm spending my day since I can't watch video of awesome archery...


Yes, it's an unfortunate artifact of brackets that the US men will have to eliminate each other.


On the other topic, although I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory accusing wily competitors of unfair gamesmanship, I'm not buying this one.

Kim Woojin finished in 1 - because he's freakin' amazing!
Ku Bonchan finished in 6
Lee Seungyun finished in 12

For sake of the argument, let's accept the premise that all South Korean archers would risk throwing away a career in order to get one single better chance of a KOR podium sweep. (I doubt this is true, but let's play pretend.) So you ruthlessly manipulate your score to make sure you don't meet before the semifinal. I'm assuming that this has been perfectly game-planned ahead of time, and that every archer/coach has access to immediate, accurate score and rank information. (again, I have doubts, but I'm arguing ad absurdium here...)

After 11 ends, they're #1, #8 and #13 (1-8 is round of 8 and 8-13 is semifinal), no good. But they're both on tie-breaks. Lee is on a 9-count tie break with Florian Floto.

But it's the 8th place that's the problem, not the 13th. (1-13 is a semifinal match, that's fine). So Ku, instead of shooting a 56, should be shooting like superman to break his tie and take 7th. But he doesn't he shoots a 56.

Lee should, if anything, hold his position. 12th is fine, 13th is fine. Neither of those affect anything even if Ku should rise to 7th or drop to 8th or 9th. 11th is only bad if Ku somehow jumps to 6th.


But then Taylor Worth had the nightmare and had a miss in the final end. He dropped 8 places in a single arrow and everyone in those places advanced one slot. And Juan Rodrieguez has troubles on the final two ends and drops 8 places, 6 of them on the final end. Those events are hard to see that coming...

So now all of Ku's troubles have vanished, since he is now 6th. 5th would be bad, but 6th is perfect for him (Only meets Kim in the final)

Now the conspiracy is that Lee, somehow prescient at knowing Worth and Rodrieguez are living the nightmare, and having game-planned ahead of time to know that since Kim is 1st, Ku will shoot slightly poorly to stay in 6th, he shoots his magically perfect poor arrow to land in 12th. Of course, in a matter of 2 points between Ku and Atanu Das in 5th, and the whole thing explodes, since 5-12 is bad again.

So all it requires is robotic game-planning, perfect score updating, and knowledge of the future to know that Rodrieguez will hit a bad streak and Worth will shoot one of only two misses on the whole field.

So unless they were shooting A/B lines and both Worth and Rodrieguez were on B (and hopefully also Ku and Atanu Das), and Lee was on A (since B should go first on the 12th end), I don't see this being even something to attempt.

And, once you've decided to attempt it, if Lee were capable of perfectly hitting a dud shot like that, why is he 12th, not 2nd*? Shooting like that is really hard. Surely it would be easier to just qualify 1st, 2nd, 3rd -- problem solved.

* Well, the real reason he's not 2nd is because Brady is awesome. But 1st, 3rd, & 4th would work just as well for the conspiracy here...



Note - The decimals in the 2nd half scores are the 10-count and 9-count after 11 ends to break ties where needed.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

AR720 said:


> Taylor Worth (AUS) was in the running for third or fourth going into the final end, and ended up where he was only because he missed an arrow on the last end. His original placement would have pushed the two Koreans' placements down.
> 
> Not saying it's impossible the Koreans (whether it's the athletes, coaches, or staff) kept track of all this as the final end was happening, did the math, and then told Lee Seungyun to plant a 7...but it seems very unlikely.


I don't buy it. Assuming omniscience and the sole goal of missing 6/11, why aim red to miss red when a gold shot you've been doing all day avoids the 6/11 matchup also? 7 "on purpose" strikes me as the riskier choice, since he was splitting 10s and 9s all day, which would make it a decent percentage chance (though well under 50/50) that he hits the 8 trying to score the 7. When the smarter play would be the higher percentage chance of simply making either 10 or 9 like you have most shots all day. [Unless you didn't want to move up, which strikes me as the more sensible reason.]

I also think it ascribes more omniscience than I believe. My experience Ianseo was often a little behind on updating realtime end totals so who knows if they have current running scores in their hands, and even if they did, you'd have to have a real time grasp on how a half dozen or so people are all performing, arrow by arrow, who could move up or down. The scoring pack was so tight with every point being a spot or two I struggle to believe it's that controlled. It's not like he has one guy two points behind and otherwise space around him and shoots a 7 to let him pass. He's sardined in there and anything anyone is doing could affect him no matter what he does, too close, too dynamic.


----------



## Gwelfgulfer (Jul 1, 2016)

tkaap said:


> Here's the longer version of exactly this. Evidently this is how I'm spending my day since I can't watch video of awesome archery...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's an unfortunate artifact of brackets that the US men will have to eliminate each other.
> ...


So you're saying there is a chance?


----------



## AR720 (Jun 28, 2016)

Single line:

http://ianseo.net/TourData/2016/1345/ENS.php

Worth was on Target 1, the Koreans were on 16, 17, and 18.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

tkaap: it had occurred to me from an individual standpoint dropping down the standings only buys you an even rougher road through the H2H. His reward dropping down is the 5 seed, 2 points better than the 6 seed he is supposedly avoiding. The conspiracy theory response would likely be that he is being a good soldier spacing the Koreans out, and that this is a team concern elevated above his individual route.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Why do people think this doesn't happen? It happens all the time. Its not a conspiracy, its just part of the rules. Its part of the strategy. Yes there is risk in doing this, but it is a calculated risk. No one wants to be eliminated in the first round. The competitors know the scores, their coaches know the scores, and the scouts know the scores. In any system where advancement is based on placement and not solely on score/time, then strategies becomes part of the process. Nothing wrong with developing a strategy. Everyone develops strategies to give them the best possible edge. Do I shoot a 9/10 and have to face #3 or #4, or do I shoot a 6/7 and face #13 or #14 My averages can beat the #13/#14 averages, but it will be tight against #3/#4. So lets take the chance to go against #13/#14 and get past round 1 and 2 and see how things play out by the time round 3 gets there. Or do I get aggressive, but take the chance of getting eliminated in round 1.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or being a conspiracy, in this thought process. It is within the rules of the game. This is just a natural outcome of the set system.

What gets to be fun to watch, is how it actually plays out, did the strategy work? or did it fail and they rethink for the next time a different strategy.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Why do people think this doesn't happen? It happens all the time. Its not a conspiracy, its just part of the rules. Its part of the strategy. Yes there is risk in doing this, but it is a calculated risk. No one wants to be eliminated in the first round. The competitors know the scores, their coaches know the scores, and the scouts know the scores. In any system where advancement is based on placement and not solely on score/time, then strategies becomes part of the process. Nothing wrong with developing a strategy. Everyone develops strategies to give them the best possible edge. Do I shoot a 9/10 and have to face #3 or #4, or do I shoot a 6/7 and face #13 or #14 My averages can beat the #13/#14 averages, but it will be tight against #3/#4. So lets take the chance to go against #13/#14 and get past round 1 and 2 and see how things play out by the time round 3 gets there. Or do I get aggressive, but take the chance of getting eliminated in round 1.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong or being a conspiracy, in this thought process. It is within the rules of the game. This is just a natural outcome of the set system.
> 
> What gets to be fun to watch, is how it actually plays out, did the strategy work? or did it fail and they rethink for the next time a different strategy.


Pretty much this. Also no point in trying to analyze the field while on it. Not much can be done unless someone is scoping in on each bale. The planning would have happened over the past year or so of WCs analyzing archer performance and establishing possible RANKINGS, not scores. You establish a probability for each archer to place in a certain spot over data from prior performances and then you adjust accordingly. This is easy to do since for the most part its all the usual suspects showing up to these events. The possibilities of meta gaming it transcends performance at the Olympic ranking rounds. If you're going to game it, you need to game it over a longer period of time.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

That's a lot of commotion because some guy shot a 7. 

You forget, the ranking round is for individual competition, not to try go get a one-nation podium sweep. A competitor should not concern himself if his opponent is a fellow countryman or not.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Why do people think this doesn't happen? It happens all the time. Its not a conspiracy, its just part of the rules. Its part of the strategy. Yes there is risk in doing this, but it is a calculated risk. No one wants to be eliminated in the first round. The competitors know the scores, their coaches know the scores, and the scouts know the scores. In any system where advancement is based on placement and not solely on score/time, then strategies becomes part of the process. Nothing wrong with developing a strategy. Everyone develops strategies to give them the best possible edge. Do I shoot a 9/10 and have to face #3 or #4, or do I shoot a 6/7 and face #13 or #14 My averages can beat the #13/#14 averages, but it will be tight against #3/#4. So lets take the chance to go against #13/#14 and get past round 1 and 2 and see how things play out by the time round 3 gets there. Or do I get aggressive, but take the chance of getting eliminated in round 1.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong or being a conspiracy, in this thought process. It is within the rules of the game. This is just a natural outcome of the set system.
> 
> What gets to be fun to watch, is how it actually plays out, did the strategy work? or did it fail and they rethink for the next time a different strategy.


I don't think it's conspiratorial it ever happens. What I don't buy is he planned on Worth. What I don't buy is he was trying to avoid 6/11, with one arrow left, not by drilling the gold for a higher seed, but by shooting a 7 to drop back a few spots. Because 7 versus 10 is not a spot, it's like 2 or 3 spots. Actually, now that I think about it, if he doesn't know what Worth did but is otherwise cued in, then he would have thought 7 got him precisely 13th???????? Not 12th. 13th gets him the high flying Dutchman and not the Indian or the Korean. Does not compute.

If he was trying for 12th on purpose he shoots an 8 and then Worth messes him over.......by elevating him to 11th.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Stash said:


> That's a lot of commotion because some guy shot a 7.
> 
> You forget, the ranking round is for individual competition, not to try go get a one-nation podium sweep. A competitor should not concern himself if his opponent is a fellow countryman or not.


The folks who write the Checks for the National Programs, and the People that benefit from those checks probably feel very differently than what you're saying. A podium full of matching uniforms (sponsorship patches/logos?) and your Country's flag in the background is pretty powerful. That's going to flow down to the individual athletes I'd think.

Just from "tkaap's" post above though, I'm overwhelmed with the logistics. Seems unlikely. But, if Korea did manage to purposely pull off such an outcome in Qualifications, more power to them.

Brent


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Why do people think this doesn't happen? It happens all the time.


Perhaps it does -- I have no idea one way or the other. It definitely happened in the 2012 Badminton competition with their extra-wacky bracket.

But I doubt Lee Seungyun did it today.



With a simple seeded-64 bracket, there is never _ever_ a numerical advantage to sandbagging. The worse your rank gets, the higher your first-round opponent's rank is, every single time.

So the advantage-seeker is hoping for something else:
1) The opponent's rank is wrong
2) An upset
3) A seeding placement which, although _more_ difficult, would keep alive the hope for the podium sweep with a teammate.

With all of the variables in flux here, 3) is nearly impossible (I think it's _totally_ impossible). But Korea has fluked into it. We'll see how that plays out. 


1) The opponent's rank is wrong - Relies on you being sure you're the only one sandbagging. If someone else is also tanking, then you're effectively pulling numbers from a bingo cage, and you can't accurately game-plan that. And it relies on no one else having a bad day, or an equipment issue. I'll bet that the Malaysian gent in 55th place is unhappy that he's up against Rodrieguez after his bad 11th and 12th ends, but that's nothing to how nervous the Egyptian gent in 51st place who was going to get Richard Soto and now has Taylor Worth...

2) Relies on scouting out that certain opponents might be far worse at H2H than in the ranking round, so in those cases you could attempt to line up against that opponent rather than a strong H2H opponent. Calculating the likelihood of an upset is really sketchy and inaccurate, though. This is the most valid idea, in my opinion. Since the game of archery otherwise involves zero strategy or defense at all, in any possible way, I can't get too worked up if someone else wants to study my performance and try to exploit me if I can't hack it in H2H rounds. Weakness in my game is there to be exploited, and it's up to me to get better so everyone works hard to avoid me.

-T


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seems the Japanese archer gets it

6. RELIEF

London 2012 silver medallist Furukawa Takaharu finished seventh. His thoughts on his performance had an interesting twist.

“I feel relieved! I will not shoot against any archer from Korea until the semis, so I’m super happy,” he said. The seeds slot into positions in the brackets, and Furukawa had checked his potential path to the finals. “I didn’t want to [meet them] and finishing seventh helps me.”

https://worldarchery.org/news/142335/8-takeaways-rio-2016-mens-qualification


Chris


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

You play the rules as they are before you. 

If the US coaches want to "play" the bracket, they should have been watching the other scores.

If you have a bracket set up where teammates can shoot against each other, the bracket game will be played. Period.

At least we are a sport where score does matter. Do you want to be a figure skater that wins by an arbitrary number given by possibly bias judge?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

tkaap said:


> Here's the longer version of exactly this. Evidently this is how I'm spending my day since I can't watch video of awesome archery...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's an unfortunate artifact of brackets that the US men will have to eliminate each other.
> ...


Well, if you're going to bring math and complexity theory into it, I can always just watch Seinfeld reruns 

I do think that some countries will employ a 'team strategy' to try and avoid exactly the bracket hell that the USA finds itself in. How often it plays out favorably, who knows? And I'm not slamming the teams that do that - I'm slamming the format that invites that potentiality. As opposed to 'who shot the highest score? He's the champ - period.' 

And maybe it's just bad luck for the USA, and good luck for Korea (and the Japanese archer in 7th). I'm told the USA suffered the same bad luck in 1996, too. It would be interesting to see how many countries are afflicted with 'bad luck' in bracket positioning over the years, versus how many (if any) countries over the years somehow seem to avert such bad luck.

And, gwelfgulfer, I love the "so you're saying there is a chance!" comment - classic!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Demmer said:


> And another reason pure score should matter. &#55357;&#56859;&#55357;&#56859;&#55357;&#56859;&#55357;&#56859;&#55357;&#56859;
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


AGREED but we have to keep the IOC happy. If you think its bad here, you ought to see what has happened to shooting

top six go into a final round where everyone starts from zero In trap you shoot 15 targets (one from each trap but you don't know the order) top two shoot for gold, next two shoot for bronze, last two are history. In one case someone shot a 125x125 14/15 14/15 and didn't get a medal even though they shot a 153/155 which was 4 targets higher than anyone else. 

Maybe because in the 12 Games Kim Rhode went into the final 25 (back then women shot 100 targets -top 6 shot another 25 targets, top score wins unless there is a tie and then its the top score in the final round) with a 7 target lead. In other words, it was over before the final round, Kim isn't going to drop 7 targets to anyone ever


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i dont mind the bracket match ups. It is was it is. Sucks though when the same country goes against each other before the final 8. 


Chris


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

As the years go by "corporate" will keep trying to level the playing field. Just like NASCAR. Gordon was winning too much let's change the point system. Johnson was winning to much, let's change.. johnson still winning to much, let's change again. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Jim C said:


> AGREED but we have to keep the IOC happy. If you think its bad here, you ought to see what has happened to shooting
> 
> top six go into a final round where everyone starts from zero In trap you shoot 15 targets (one from each trap but you don't know the order) top two shoot for gold, next two shoot for bronze, last two are history. In one case someone shot a 125x125 14/15 14/15 and didn't get a medal even though they shot a 153/155 which was 4 targets higher than anyone else.
> 
> Maybe because in the 12 Games Kim Rhode went into the final 25 (back then women shot 100 targets -top 6 shot another 25 targets, top score wins unless there is a tie and then its the top score in the final round) with a 7 target lead. In other words, it was over before the final round, Kim isn't going to drop 7 targets to anyone ever


That is soo dumb. Smh. I am saddened when things (people's skill) gets dumbed down like that. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

This morning field was full of photographers in the media area, competition was going very fast and no one behind could figure what was happening around as it was even difficult to watch a single target. 

But while it is practically impossible to try any strategy to adjust the individuals bracket, for sure this happens in the teams bracket. No serious coach would like to see his team ending 8th or 9th place in this game, and even 4th and 5th places aren't welcome.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> This morning field was full of photographers in the media area, competition was going very fast and no one behind could figure what was happening around as it was even difficult to watch a single target.
> 
> But while it is practically impossible to try any strategy to adjust the individuals bracket, for sure this happens in the teams bracket. No serious coach would like to see his team ending 8th or 9th place in this game, and even 4th and 5th places aren't welcome.


Wow. Congratulations in getting Italy qualified in 3rd!  That would seem to me to be an order of magnitude more difficult than keeping the individuals apart!
It looks like, it could be USA v. Italy in the Semis. Without a Frangilli on the team this time to close with a 10 and mess things up.  
Good Luck!
I sure hope I can find a Video Stream to watch that! Darn NBC teasing that it would live stream the Qualifications, but didn't. 

Brent


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

Gwelfgulfer said:


> So you're saying there is a chance?





lksseven said:


> And, gwelfgulfer, I love the "so you're saying there is a chance!" comment - classic!


Absolutely. Gwelfgulfer wins Friday. Well, he and Kim Woo-jin, obviously.

-T


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

RickBac said:


> You play the rules as they are before you.
> 
> If the US coaches want to "play" the bracket, they should have been watching the other scores.
> 
> ...


Past US coaches did play the brackets. I don't know if the current ones did or not. Let's not rule out the possibility that the coaches did try to play the brackets and archer(s) didn't execute well.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

My utmost admiration for archers who find spare mental capacity to play the bracket instead of trying to hit their best against the world's best.

It amazes me that there are some who confuse preference with intent.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> My utmost admiration for archers who find spare mental capacity to play the bracket instead of trying to hit their best against the world's best.
> 
> It amazes me that there are some who confuse preference with intent.


LOL. Clearly from someone who has never been in the arena.

It's the coach's job to pay attention to these things. What the hell else are they doing? So, archers shoot, coaches watch and give advice to the archer. Pretty simple really. I know one team this worked out pretty well for, because they had a coach who paid attention and gave solid advice.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Name that team.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

theminoritydude said:


> Name that team.


1996 U.S. men's team. Take a look at Rod White's Facebook page, he's been talking about it all weekend.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually, I was thinking of another, but 1996 is an even better example. 

TMD might want to rethink their expertise.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

RMBX10 said:


> 1996 U.S. men's team. Take a look at Rod White's Facebook page, he's been talking about it all weekend.


So was it the individual event or the team event?
Without having to quote the OP, I believe this thread to be talking about how some in the top 32 ranked archers somehow placed themselves in an arrangement through the computing wizardry of their coaches to retain the possibility of meeting each other at the medal matches but without first making sure that they placed themselves in the top 16.

If this were to be about team elimination rounds, Vittorrio has already shared his opinions, some of us have known that for some time.

I just want to know the mind of an Olympian, how he or she could let go of the chance of placing himself or herself in an advantageous position from the very beginning, and talk about strategy after that.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Or top 4 for that matter.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

If you want to beat the Koreans, ... do what the Koreans do, only better, ... it's that simple. The rules are there for all to read and they apply equally to everyone


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

lksseven said:


> Looking At placements.
> Brady 2
> Zach 15
> Jake 31
> ...


Please please please.......what an utter rubbish. Yeah Koreans cheating and poor US guys.....get over it, it's pathetic.

Would you tell Mr Lee he is cheat to his face? I guess not. Why you not call cheat Mr Worth? Surely it's easier to miss, then aim and hit 7.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

Not sure why still complaining....not correct H2H, not correct seeding to brackets....bla bla bla.

If you want all medals then be 1,2,3 in qualification = problem sorted.

btw. H2H set system.....so much complaining and then no shoot off's, No.1 seeded won both times so best archers won = hope everyone happy here


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

theminoritydude said:


> So was it the individual event or the team event?
> Without having to quote the OP, I believe this thread to be talking about how some in the top 32 ranked archers somehow placed themselves in an arrangement through the computing wizardry of their coaches to retain the possibility of meeting each other at the medal matches but without first making sure that they placed themselves in the top 16.
> 
> If this were to be about team elimination rounds, Vittorrio has already shared his opinions, some of us have known that for some time.
> ...


Yes, that's exactly what they did in 1996. Go here and you can read all about from someone who was there on the field https://www.facebook.com/rod.white.58555941


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Actually, I was thinking of another, but 1996 is an even better example.
> 
> TMD might want to rethink their expertise.


Which were you thinking of? I'd guess that you guys did that in 2004 too. 

Side note, I regret it every time I take TMD off of my ignore list.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

RMBX10 said:


> Which were you thinking of? I'd guess that you guys did that in 2004 too.
> 
> Side note, I regret it every time I take TMD off of my ignore list.


Having gone through the 1996 Olympic trials I can tell you this topic was all the talk and not new at that!


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

toxoph said:


> Having gone through the 1996 Olympic trials I can tell you this topic was all the talk and not new at that!


I didn't mean to imply that it was new in 1996. Even as a junior archer (intermediate was what it was called back then) we knew it was happening. I very vividly remember it coming into play during those years that the JOAD & NAA outdoor championships placements were based entirely on results of the OR.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Please please please.......what an utter rubbish. Yeah Koreans cheating and poor US guys.....get over it, it's pathetic.
> 
> Would you tell Mr Lee he is cheat to his face? I guess not. Why you not call cheat Mr Worth? Surely it's easier to miss, then aim and hit 7.


I don't think anyone called anyone cheaters. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

RMBX10 said:


> Yes, that's exactly what they did in 1996. Go here and you can read all about from someone who was there on the field https://www.facebook.com/rod.white.58555941


All you did was point to a Facebook page. It would help if you pointed to the exact article, or at least quoted the guy. I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate the computational genius of the coaches in Rio.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Again, I elaborate. This thread is stating as a matter of fact that 

1) Archers deliberately arranged themselves to fall outside of certain brackets
2) The way it is done, is by keeping an eye on their own teammates and their scores through their coaches, and the scores of everyone else on the line, every step of the way, with real time information on their immediate rankings.
3) Project the possible outcomes to the end of the qualification round, and with one shot at it, avoid the positions that puts one in the same bracket as his or her teammates, and vice versa for those teammates.
4) All these, while trying to hit the center of a 122cm target at 70m.
5) Place the whole team in the top few position for team eliminations.

What are you people smoking?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think a better question is why we are still shooting single elimination when so many other sports use "pool play" and other types of brackets that are not single elimination. 

A few years ago, I instituted a double elimination matchplay bracket at our TSAA state events to guarantee every archer at least two matches. In a few cases, an archer came out of the "losers" bracket to beat the top ranked archer, then they had a final match (so two back-to-back matches with the same archers) to determine the gold medalist. It was very exciting for everyone to watch, especially when two archers shot two consecutive matches. 

To me, this is the ultimate matchplay format. Nearly every single spectator at those state outdoor events agreed, and the archers loved having a second chance.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I think a better question is why we are still shooting single elimination when so many other sports use "pool play" and other types of brackets that are not single elimination.
> 
> A few years ago, I instituted a double elimination matchplay bracket at our TSAA state events to guarantee every archer at least two matches. In a few cases, an archer came out of the "losers" bracket to beat the top ranked archer, then they had a final match (so two back-to-back matches with the same archers) to determine the gold medalist. It was very exciting for everyone to watch, especially when two archers shot two consecutive matches.
> 
> To me, this is the ultimate matchplay format. Nearly every single spectator at those state outdoor events agreed, and the archers loved having a second chance.


The answer to your first question is probably hidden somewhere in the political negotiations between FITA and the IOC. 

Agreed, it is much more exciting when there is a double-elimination format. If I recall correctly, the Gold Cup used some kind of double elimination or else just did two complete ORs in the same day. (That was 97-99-ish). At least one of those years I ended up shooting against Eric Hall twice in the same day.


----------



## TMax27 (Nov 7, 2006)

Kim Woo-Jin just got beat in the second round.


----------



## droy (Dec 21, 2012)

Agatha - that's an upset!

Also Aida out to Moldova


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Not sure why still complaining....not correct H2H, not correct seeding to brackets....bla bla bla.
> 
> If you want all medals then be 1,2,3 in qualification = problem sorted.
> 
> btw. H2H set system.....so much complaining and then no shoot off's, No.1 seeded won both times so best archers won = hope everyone happy here


tell that to Kim Woojin...,

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gonna be an interesting four years. We will sit back and watch and see if the sponsors/countries can tolerate these upsets of their top archers much longer. Of course, they (the sponsors) have hedged their bets by supporting essentially all the elites, so a real underdog would have to win to keep them from claiming how superior "their" archers are... however a few dominant nations may continue to push for a more equitable process.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Double elimination would eliminate most of (all?) my complaints (falling under the "spec of sand on the beach' category).


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

You can't expect to advance if you shoot a seven and 3 eights in a set. It was 107-110, so in any format, he would've lost.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> You can't expect to advance if you shoot a seven and 3 eights in a set. It was 107-110, so in any format, he would've lost.


Good point. There is a great sports psych case study in the difference between the mental game of the Korean men and Korean women, if someone chose to pursue it.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Not sure why still complaining....not correct H2H, not correct seeding to brackets....bla bla bla.
> 
> If you want all medals then be 1,2,3 in qualification = problem sorted.
> 
> btw. H2H set system.....so much complaining and then no shoot off's, No.1 seeded won both times so best archers won = hope everyone happy here


I don't know where your chip-on-the-shoulder comes from, but it isn't relevant to my post. Or my followup post "I do think that some countries will employ a 'team strategy' to try and avoid exactly the bracket hell that the USA finds itself in. How often it plays out favorably, who knows? And I'm not slamming the teams that do that - I'm slamming the format that invites that potentiality. As opposed to 'who shot the highest score? He's the champ - period.'" I didn't call anyone cheaters. Maybe you're posting on the wrong thread?

'I'm not a fan of the single elimination system' when there are alternative formats that would encourage a more perfect determination of "who's the best?" 

The majority of casual spectators are going to LOVE it that Woo-jin got knocked off in the second round. A lot of archers and those who want to see the best archers on display aren't going to be that thrilled with the format .... a difference in emphasis. 

Quick! - what the name of the guy that beat Kim? Quick! Who remembers the 2004 Olympic gold medal male? Yeah, I can't remember them, either. But I know what '1405' means, and I know what '700' means, and I know the names that go with them. Again, just a difference in emphasis, I suppose. 

I'd vote for medals for the top three qualifiers (much like US Nationals) in the ranking round. Those achievements should be acknowledged, imo.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

zal said:


> You can't expect to advance if you shoot a seven and 3 eights in a set. It was 107-110, so in any format, he would've lost.


Excellent point. There is a distinct skill needed to shoot well 'under the gun'. I would expect Kim to never shoot 4 in the red in an end.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Good point. There is a great sports psych case study in the difference between the mental game of the Korean men and Korean women, if someone chose to pursue it.


Koreans themselves have done countless of academic papers on it, a mate of mine who worked in an university in Korea for a while dug them up for me, but they were all Korean, not even English abstracts, so no luck


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

zal said:


> You can't expect to advance if you shoot a seven and 3 eights in a set. It was 107-110, so in any format, he would've lost.


Meh. Not that great of a point. Head to heads should never determine an Olympic champion. Everyone is trying to turn archery into a sprint style sport for whatever reason. Even the best has a 9 arrow stumble or so during the weekend. Head to heads is a lot about running into a lucky streak. Sorry if a lot don't see it that way, but whatever. It really does *******ize the sport. The turn of events may change the next Olympic approach. We shall see. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I disagree. Head-to-head is a great way to determine a champion, albeit often a "different" champion than would arise from a pure score format. But they are no less a champion and have had to master a different skill set.

If it were not for the head-to-head format, great matchplay archers like Vic Wunderle would be a footnote in the sport.

Those trying to turn archery into a sprint sport are the same ones who recognize the average viewer has the attention span of a gnat these days, and they are merely playing to the market. Few sports have the "watchability" to provide for hours of viewing. I can think of a few, but not many for which I would follow a single event for an hour, and even fewer if there are only a few individuals competing. 

Individual competition and lengthy formats do not equal viewers IMO. Esp. in a sport like archery where there is zero strategy to consider.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Anything that helps the less skilled archer have a better chance of winning, isn't a winning format. I guess we will agree to disagree. Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Match Play is the rule set right now. It is exciting to watch.
On any given day one Pro Athlete can beat any other Pro Athlete in their sport. Yes there are upsets. 

That is one reason Baseball, Basketball and Hockey play 7 game series. (the other is money)

As has been said, the viewers attention span is short. Especially when they don't completely understand the sport. They can follow the excitement of 3 to 5 ends, but would feel they are watching the Paint Drying Nationals (like synchronized diving to me) when watching a qualifying round over 3 hours. We must adapt.

You can complain. If you want something different, on your local level host a tournament in the format your group wants.

Our current crop of kids love the new format. They know the positives and negative. But as we train them in the new format, that will make them even better at shooting in it in the future.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

Demmer said:


> Anything that helps the less skilled archer have a better chance of winning, isn't a winning format. I guess we will agree to disagree. Lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


why bother to go to Nationals then? We'll just go shoot for fun and concede all spots to those who have always had a better average 😉


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

granite14 said:


> why bother to go to Nationals then? We'll just go shoot for fun and concede all spots to those who have always had a better average &#55357;&#56841;


This.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Why should anyone do anything then. Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> Anything that helps the less skilled archer have a better chance of winning, isn't a winning format. I guess we will agree to disagree. Lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Maintaining a strong mental focus and the ability to shoot one arrow well in a head to head elimination format is a skill. It's just a different skill than racking up points in a ranking round.

Most of my JOAD kids enjoy matchplay, but they didn't at first. It's an acquired skill set. Once they have enough experience at it, they much prefer it over ranking rounds. However, I'm not sure many parents prefer matchplay. I could be wrong, but by their body language and the things they say, I think single elimination matchplay is more than most JOAD parent's hearts can take.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

There should be a strong mental focus on every arrow at all times. if you lose focus racking up points, things can go haywire there too. That's where I don't understand a some of the logic. Maybe I approach shoots differently than others. The only thing set play does is put more pressure on the favorites and less on the lower seeds. You should always maintain focus. Weather or not people want to openly admit it or not, this set play format brings in a lot more luck into the game. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Elimination rounds are no different than many other club sports.

I have friends that kids play club Baseball and Volleyball. They can spend a lot more than we do traveling, teams and coaching. Some of the tournaments are single or double eliminations. Travel across the country for airfare, food, hotels etc. and go home in one day.

If you do not like the format, do not attend the tournament. It is that easy.

As a coach I will prepare my archers for the format set before them. 

As for USAT and Nationals, you know WAY ahead of time of the format and what is required. Read the tournament information page.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I personally think they should shoot more arrows and go back to more time for the Olympics.

To be regulated to 20 seconds and only two arrows per end in team rounds makes for much more volatile matches. Use to be eacch team member shot 3 arrows for 9 per end, 3 ends total for 27 arrow and you had 40 seconds or more to shoot each arrow. Now its two per end, 20 seconds and you shoot about 6 arrows.

Same for individual matches. Use to be 18 arrow and then 12 arrow ends. Now its 9-12 total and 20 seconds.

Everyone here knows what happens when you rush with archery. Plenty of bad shots, even from elite archers. Look at the multitude of red or worse arrows this olympics. 

Cant blame the wind, Athens and Seoul had the worst winds for shooting and they were able to shoot better. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Demmer said:


> There should be a strong mental focus on every arrow at all times. if you lose focus racking up points, things can go haywire there too. That's where I don't understand a some of the logic. Maybe I approach shoots differently than others. The only thing set play does is put more pressure on the favorites and less on the lower seeds. You should always maintain focus. Weather or not people want to openly admit it or not, this set play format brings in a lot more luck into the game.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


John, I suspect you do approach ranking rounds differently, which is why you're struggling to see the difference, which isn't a bad thing. Maybe everyone should have the singular focus you have during the ranking rounds. But the fact is, most of us don't, which is what makes the elimination rounds so interesting to watch.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Cant blame the wind, Athens and Seoul had the worst winds for shooting and they were able to shoot better.


Wind? What wind? LOL.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Also the format is more geared to shooting cold. In older team rounds, you could shoot 3 arrows in a row and get a flow going. 

Now, you step up shoot one arrow, wait 5 minutes for the rest of your team to shoot, other team to shoot. Then you step up and shoot one arrow.


Alternating heads up rounds is more of the same. Step up shoot one arrow cold in 20 seconds or less then wait and get cold again.

Leads to less than stellar shots. Sure you can train for it, but it creates violatility and upsets.

In my opinion.

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Every format - no matter what it is - will favor one athlete over another. Deal with it.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> tell that to Kim Woojin...,
> 
> Chris


Don't understand why? It was not shoot off....Kim just shot badly and would loose also on score .


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

lksseven said:


> I don't know where your chip-on-the-shoulder comes from, but it isn't relevant to my post. Or my followup post "I do think that some countries will employ a 'team strategy' to try and avoid exactly the bracket hell that the USA finds itself in. How often it plays out favorably, who knows? And I'm not slamming the teams that do that - I'm slamming the format that invites that potentiality. As opposed to 'who shot the highest score? He's the champ - period.'" I didn't call anyone cheaters. Maybe you're posting on the wrong thread?
> 
> 'I'm not a fan of the single elimination system' when there are alternative formats that would encourage a more perfect determination of "who's the best?"
> 
> ...


What you said was that Korean archer shot a 7 deliberately to avoid match with his team mate....so I responded.

This "strategy" could be used, but always by "other" nations for team match to avoid match against Korea - don't know why Korean archer would do that, their mentality is "we are the best, no need for strategy".

Yes I see many archers would like medals for different format - just pure score for many arrows. I would like to see world in 5.000 years.....well I have to accept I will not


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Still waiting to see the coach with 64 pairs of eyes and a quantum computer........


----------



## Gwelfgulfer (Jul 1, 2016)

theminoritydude said:


> Still waiting to see the coach with 64 pairs of eyes and a quantum computer........


Big fan of those who hold out hope that people are good. In a perfect world, would Trump ever be actually considered? Would people be killed for religious reason from a 'peaceful religion' or 'honor killings'? Would corporate greed be able to dictate how the world is run? Wait, those things exist, in our perfect world :embara:

I'm like conspiracy theories as each and everyday we are shown things that defy basic logic and common sense, and would assume that could never happen. Well they do...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> Still waiting to see the coach with 64 pairs of eyes and a quantum computer........


You don't have much faith in professional coaches then.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

You think they need to watch all 64? Lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes. Unless you didn't know that.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Either that, or you thought you could do that, but you didn't know that you can't.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Clue: Just look at how good some of the guys here are with a certain forum function. 

These guys had ONE function to use.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

RickBac said:


> Match Play is the rule set right now. It is exciting to watch.
> On any given day one Pro Athlete can beat any other Pro Athlete in their sport. Yes there are upsets.
> 
> That is one reason Baseball, Basketball and Hockey play 7 game series. (the other is money)
> ...


If Kim can't run circles around everyone regardless of format why are we acting like he is definitively "the best" and the format should be softened to ensure "the best" win? Because he did a world record in the prelim? I find that kind of contradictory, the idea that one archer or set of archers is already "the best" before we run the event. At minimum, as some have suggested, quali and H2H may have different levels of pressure and favor different people. I have limited outdoor experience and what became quickly clear to me is most of the people are shooting significantly below what their average is.....if your team doesn't get 50 or your individual 25, that's not even 300 pace. So not only is there the quali-based argument where we are talking about tenths' difference average arrows, but there is a H2H reality argument where only certain teams or individuals shoot to quali average or better, eg, Koreans shooting 60 ends. You have people who average 9.4 in quali conditions throwing up 1s and stuff like that. I assume some of that is 20 seconds to get off a shot regardless of conditions -- you can't wait the wind out for more than a handful of seconds before having to get set to get something out -- and some is presumably how they handle pressure, and maybe where they are in their learning and training progression.

After all, the Htwe girl right up until she slammed those 3 stacked 10s in, was often shooting 2 gold or even 10s and then blowing the third one to keep things interesting. You get the idea she has some learning curve left where she could be even better. Whereas I am watching Brown shoot 26 after 26 with some form foibles obvious even to me (one thing that struck me was the difference in her form vs say Garrett or Ellison), and when the Myanmar archer got fully on track she kicked her tail. So quali would favor the consistent archer but the Myanmar girl looks like she could be even better for short spurts, and is rewarded for perhaps having a higher ceiling (which she only occasionally reaches). So is the one capable of 30 or 23 any given end better, or the one churning out 26s?

Like I said on another thread, watch Oly shooting to see what some sort of cumulative scoring final with progressive reality show style chopping off of the bottom archers would look like. You end up spending more TV time watching those under "relegation threat" than those excelling. The WV girl dutifully churning out 10-point-somethings is less drama than who gets voted off the island. Y'all think it would draw attention to the best but unless it remains directly H2H it actually brings attention to the trail pack who deliver the danger and drama. By the time 4 or 5 shooters are left and attention starts to shift back to the potential medalists, you've burned 3/4 of the round and any fun you would have gotten from the positive examples, watching them churn out the equivalent of a Korean 60. The gold may even be effectively decided already.

I do agree with Christopher that if you wanted to make it less upset-y you could make it 6 arrow ends like we shoot normal rounds. The more arrows you shoot in more time the more of a quali style performance you might see. You would have to double the H2H scheduling allocation, though, because then you're going to spend all day with 1/32, half a day 1/16, etc.

Personally I am fine with the current system.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

I started out typing an answer to this thread this morning on the train but ran out out 4G connectivity and energy about the same time.

I don't like the set system for the simple reason that everything else in archery is a best-score-wins system. sets turns that into a system where an archer can score less points overall and still win. that's wrong.

I don't debate that sets are a different skill set and some champions past and present would not exist without it, but a true determination of superior skill is total points head to head under the same conditions. archery isn't a strategic sport.

if we want to have a repechage system to eliminate single knockout then fine, but get rid of the sets. they add nothing to the sport.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

caspian said:


> they add nothing to the sport.


Some would argue "Viewers"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

caspian said:


> I started out typing an answer to this thread this morning on the train but ran out out 4G connectivity and energy about the same time.
> 
> I don't like the set system for the simple reason that everything else in archery is a best-score-wins system. sets turns that into a system where an archer can score less points overall and still win. that's wrong.
> 
> ...


I don't agree. The set system, and the 12-arrow matchplay system before it (there really isn't that much difference) add new champions to the sport.

How many times would Brady Ellison have won an event if it was just a 144-arrow point total? The answer is many times fewer than he has. I doubt he ever would have reached #1 in the world without 12-arrow matchplay or the set system. I also suspect the Koreans would have shown up more often at World Cup events if they were not decided by matchplay, meaning they would have dominated the podium at nearly all the World Cup events.

So, lets not pretend that we don't all like this format. Fact is that we do. We would all get bored and lose interest without it because the Koreans are so dominant without it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Furthermore, the matchplay (again, sets or 12-arrow, take your pick) is good for the sport. How? Because without it, many archers would soon realize they have ZERO chance at a medal, and they just wouldn't play at all. 

Let's roll the clock back to 2004. Butch and Vic were dominating every event, except in a few cases where maybe Jason or Joe or Guy edged them out in the elimination bracket. Knowing that, would I have even bothered to enter a USAT ranking event if single-elimination matchplay was not featured? No. The answer is no. Why? Because I could plainly see my 640 average at the time would not have been able to compete with Butch or Vic, or for that matter the 7 or 8 others who consistently shot higher ranking scores. So it would have been a complete waste of my time and money.

However, knowing I had a pretty good mental advantage over many of the younger shooters, matchplay gave me an advantage that the ranking round did not. That is the ONLY way I had any chance at the trials in '04, and I took full advantage of it. I shot pretty well in the ranking round and still only managed 7th. But the head-to-head format gave me a chance.

Take away the matchplay brackets, watch the same two or three archers win everything, and you will soon see the participation drop at every level at every event. What gives many of our JOAD archers, and frankly recreational amateurs like myself hope, is that for one match, we can beat anyone. Even people who tend to complain about this benefit from it. They just haven't thought it through. 

The ONLY archers that single elimination matchplay does not benefit are the two or three who are winning all the ranking rounds. Everyone else, it does.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

On the flip side, if someone is so dominant in a given sport, wouldn't one just try to work harder and be better then to change the system so that said person is no longer dominant? Some are just more naturally talented or work way harder at their craft then others.
Another thought, maybe the mens Korean team should show up more often to the World Cups and shoot the head two heads. 

You know they don't have women's softball in the Olympics anymore mainly due to the fact that nobody could really touch the Americans. That was kind of sad when they dumped that sport from the Olympics.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

John, of course yours is a reasonable, if not purist view. And it's hard to disagree with that. But I'm talking about what's good for participation in the sport, and if that's the case, then matchplay is it. Both for the up and coming archers, and for the spectators. 

We can go back to pure ranking points, but it will be at the expense of archers and fans. Very few people can justify putting in the time and effort to compete for 3rd place.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

I have had two friends of mine that know I love archery. They have never paid attention to it other than to ask how my boys were doing.

Due to my interest, they watched some of the match play and said it was exciting and they could follow it. That is little ole me in Phoenix, how many others interest may be sparked?


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

Here's some sthoughts I've had while trying to solve all of the world's problems:

--Assuming qualification sandbagging is happening to gain some advantage.
--Assuming that it's bad to have compatriots eliminating each other before the semifinals.
--Assuming that archers primary team action is to their countrymen, and not to training partners from another nation...

How do we fairly prevent compatriots from eliminating each other before the semifinals? Extra points if the method also cuts down on sandbagging.


*Method 1 - Strict method*
Only 1 archer per country. Done. 
Upside: Elimination problem is solved. 
Downside: Qualification is harder, and many of the top archers will not qualify for their single national spot


*Method 2 - Random method*
After Qualification, seeds are randomly assigned. This random assignment could split compatriots to different quadrants. 
Upside: Sandbagging has zero benefit. Prevents compatriots meeting before the semifinals.
Downside: Qualifying high has zero benefit. It just makes people tired before a night's rest. (You could choose to make qualifying mean something by adding a non-trivial cut. So bring 70 shooters and only take the top 64 into the brackets, etc)


*Method 3 - Pool play method*
After qualification, split the 64 archers into 16 pools of 4 by seed order, splitting up compatriots. Then do a round-robin tournament in each pool. The top 2 in each pool then enter a single-elimination bracket. This definitely creates more H2H rounds than most other methods.
Upside -- Sandbagging has less advantage. Prevents compatriots meeting before the semifinals.
Downside -- qualifying has less advantage.


*Method 4 - Double elimination method*
After qualification, seed 1-64 as normal. The bracket is a standard double-elimination format.
Upside -- Gives a method for eliminated compatriots to still make the medal rounds
Downside -- more confusing bracket to follow. Doesn't fully prevent compatriot elimination. Doesn't disincentiveize sandbagging.


*Method 5 - Self-selection method*
After qualification, each archer can choose their bracket position in seed order. So the #1 seed can choose first, etc. This lets high-seeds either choose their earned position, or to move down the bracket seeds to any lower position. If an archer moves down the bracket, the next archer can take that now-available higher position. They can take any available position in the bracket.

Upside - Compatriots can choose to split into different quadrants to avoid elimination before the semifinals. Disincentivizes sandbagging, because the final H2H matchups will be even less determined, and other shooters' choices can remove your options and change your outcomes. It also adds another tiny aspect of strategy to archery. Or not -- archers can just opt to take the highest remaining slot as a default.
Downside - Extra communication needed after the qualification round before the brackets are set. There might be some ability for mid-table archers to choose their bracket section, but I think that most choices available at that point won't really matter. The sharks will be in place, and the minnows won't be available to choose, yet. So it's just carp choosing carp.



Method 5 is my favorite one. It also takes care of the "training partner" issue. If (hypothetically) the Brits and the Canadians want to avoid each other before the semifinals enough for one of them to move down the bracket, that's allowed. It eliminates being "trapped" into the draw of the bracket, it still rewards qualifying well, and makes sandbagging even dumber than it currently would be.

-T


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Don't understand why? It was not shoot off....Kim just shot badly and would loose also on score .


I replied to refute your post. 


Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> No.1 seeded won both times so best archers won = hope everyone happy here


Number one seeds did not win. Both Korean number one seeds lost. Which was my response to you. I didnt have a problem that they lost. Didnt matter to me one way or the other. Just stating your post wasnt accurate. 

Chris


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> I replied to refute your post.
> 
> 
> Number one seeds did not win. Both Korean number one seeds lost. Which was my response to you. I didnt have a problem that they lost. Didnt matter to me one way or the other. Just stating your post wasnt accurate.
> ...


It was as I was referring to team event (as only event decided when I wrote my comment).


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

"Rumors" say that in Rio WA has finally realized they went too far in making the competition fast in both individual and even faster for teams, and may be something will change for Tokyo.
First morning session (8th elimination men treams on 6th of August) had some acceptable public as Brazilian team was competing. But entire session duration was 1.5 hour only (4 matches only) and Brazil got eliminated in 4 sets. No more Brazilian mem team, no more (significant number of) spectators in th eother sessions, and evn finals has senn a lot of space left on the stands. 
Solution, without changing number of participants: 4 pools of 3 teams, select 2 from each pool, then 2 pools of 4 teams, select 4, and then direct elimination for semifinals and finals. One day more, local team shows up at least two times, spectators can see the same teams minimum two times. Much, much better, and formula can also apply to individuals.
Honestly, the spectacle in Rio for general public was really, really poor of content, and this is not good, at all. Also, I can't imagin that a Mix team competition, even starting with full grid of 16 teams, can get any reasonable attention form public if the direct elimintion formal will used for it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why can we not do what Track and Field and Swimming do and MAKE SURE the top 8 are in the finals? It would be so easy to do. Just have them shoot 18-arrow passes to cut to 32, then again to 16, then again to 8, and only THEN start the matches. To me, this would be a nice blend between the "old" format and the "new" matchplay format. 


A double elimination bracket would be nice too. Many sports have "pool play" where a team can lose a match and still go on to the gold medal match. Why not archery? I just don't get why anyone is satisfied with seeing some of the top ranked archers get knocked out so early. That's simply not good for the sport from a TV ratings/publicity perspective.


----------



## cekkmt (Nov 29, 2013)

Ranking round into round robin match play pools to double elimination bracket is one of the more archer/spectator friendly formats. Matches are good for spectators, more arrows is better for the archers. It also gives archers from nations with developing programs more international match experience instead of getting knocked out first round. For the media and storylines the only archers that we have meaningful head to head data for are the ones who consistently make it to the medal matches. Double Elimination helps since you are multiplying the number of matches by 1.5.

In terms of the Olympics you could split into 8 - 8 person pools, in each pool the top2 get seeded into top 16 winners bracket and 3-4 seeds go into losers side of the bracket. How many people get seeded into bracket could be adjusted depending on the amount of time allotted. 

For the world cup you can do the same thing just increase the size of the pools. Recurve Sunday can feature losers finals and grand finals so time isn't an issue.

The main issue with double elimination and round robin pools is that it takes a lot longer and has a lot more bracket rounds than a single elimination bracket. There's plenty of existing software to run a double elimination bracket on the internet and following those brackets isn't particularly difficult.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Our sport needs this IMO. When we (2x) featured a double elim. matchplay bracket for our Texas state outdoor championship, the archers, parents and everyone else loved it. As was said - much needed valuable experience and even more shooting. What's not to like?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Why can we not do what Track and Field and Swimming do and MAKE SURE the top 8 are in the finals? It would be so easy to do. Just have them shoot 18-arrow passes to cut to 32, then again to 16, then again to 8, and only THEN start the matches. To me, this would be a nice blend between the "old" format and the "new" matchplay format.


Sort of like "Grand FITA meets match play". Makes sense. But not likely to happen.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Sort of like "Grand FITA meets match play". Makes sense. But not likely to happen.


Exactly. And it probably won't happen because it does make too much sense.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I thnk we should all be thankful for what we have, Olympic-wise. Consider that we might just as well have ended up on SynchroSwimmingTalk.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

toxoph said:


> Some would argue "Viewers"


 don't think so. Watch the 2012 team match US vs Italy, every arrow shot was exciting and important and the cumulative scoring was used. This Olympics archery was blah. I


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Why can we not do what Track and Field and Swimming do and MAKE SURE the top 8 are in the finals? It would be so easy to do. Just have them shoot 18-arrow passes to cut to 32, then again to 16, then again to 8, and only THEN start the matches. To me, this would be a nice blend between the "old" format and the "new" matchplay format.
> 
> 
> A double elimination bracket would be nice too. Many sports have "pool play" where a team can lose a match and still go on to the gold medal match. Why not archery? I just don't get why anyone is satisfied with seeing some of the top ranked archers get knocked out so early. That's simply not good for the sport from a TV ratings/publicity perspective.


I would rather see 36 arrows, cut to 32 then another 36 cut to 16, one more round of 36 to get to 8 and now begin matches. Also, the points should be cumulative until the head to head matches. Frequently at the elite level only a few points separate the top 8 archers.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

why not:

- Ranking round gets its own set of medals.
- Top 16 advance to Match Play double elimination tournament (using the set system), with its own set of medals (or top 15 plus the host country's highest ranking archer if not in the top 16). Lower 48 archers are out. Double Elimination means the 16 match play archers can still win gold while losing a single match, allowing for more competition viewing, more drama for the spectators, a more even test of skill for the archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't know of too many sports where they award medals for ranking round, and then continue on to head to head matchplay for medals. I think that would be counterproductive for viewership. If the gold medal has already been awarded to an individual, why bother awarding a 2nd individual gold. Move on to team, or mixed team at that point.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

lksseven said:


> why not:
> 
> - Ranking round gets its own set of medals.
> - Top 16 advance to Match Play double elimination tournament (using the set system), with its own set of medals (or top 15 plus the host country's highest ranking archer if not in the top 16). Lower 48 archers are out. Double Elimination means the 16 match play archers can still win gold while losing a single match, allowing for more competition viewing, more drama for the spectators, a more even test of skill for the archers.


That reminds me of USAT/NTC tournaments. Two sets of medals (Quali and H2H) have confused me on who the champion is!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I don't know of too many sports where they award medals for ranking round, and then continue on to head to head matchplay for medals. I think that would be counterproductive for viewership. If the gold medal has already been awarded to an individual, why bother awarding a 2nd individual gold. Move on to team, or mixed team at that point.


look at Gymnastics. 

All Around team, all around individual, then individual medals for each floor, beam, bars and vault. Same routines done 5 or 6 times for each medaling.

I doubt viewers say, She already did this routine and won the gold for all around team, and all around individual. Now why should i watch to see if she can win gold in Individual.

People will watch regardless if medals are awarded for qualifications and then heads up. Instead of thinking of it as qualifications, its a 72 arrow tournament to to award medals for the three top scorers, and placement in it also is used for seeding individual and team medal rounds. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

iArch said:


> That reminds me of USAT/NTC tournaments. Two sets of medals (Quali and H2H) have confused me on who the champion is!


and dont forget medals for was 36 arrow top three scores.

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> look at Gymnastics.
> 
> All Around team, all around individual, then individual medals for each floor, beam, bars and vault. Same routines done 5 or 6 times for each medaling.
> 
> ...


There is not enough difference between shooting one distance and the next to even compare that to beam vs. floor vs. bars.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> and dont forget medals for was 36 arrow top three scores.
> 
> Chris


Not at Nationals, but at some world ranking events, yes.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> There is not enough difference between shooting one distance and the next to even compare that to beam vs. floor vs. bars.


correct, but its the same routine for all. The same thing done over and over. 

At least in Skating they have a short program and a long program. For Gymnastics, its the same routine done by the same members over and over for different medals.

Chris


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

I'd like to see 144 arrows in the ranking round and medal the top 3. 
Then cut to 16 and set play as we have now, and medal the top 3. 

It would remove some of the possible strategic finishes in the qualification round and we'd see the best archers a second time, perhaps a third time if the team format remains. 

It gives the athletes the opportunity to medal more than once. It bugs me a track athlete or a swimmer has so many chances to medal.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

cc46 said:


> It gives the athletes the opportunity to medal more than once. It bugs me a track athlete or a swimmer has so many chances to medal.


Or that gymnast can medal in all around team which is a qualification round, all around individual which is a qualification round, then medal in each individual event, while doing the same exact thing each time. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> correct, but its the same routine for all. The same thing done over and over.
> 
> At least in Skating they have a short program and a long program. For Gymnastics, its the same routine done by the same members over and over for different medals.
> 
> Chris


I understand what you're saying now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't think it would be a stretch to award medals for a 144-arrow ranking event, than also to the matchplay. Those are two very unique skill sets, and it would place a little more value on the ranking event.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Most viewers wouldn't see any difference, it's still the same archer with the same bow trying to hit the same target.

The only comparison between gymnastics and archery is if the bows change or the targets do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fair enough. Archery is such a diverse sport. It's a darn shame we can't represent that at the Olympics.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

Wouldn't the addition of a field archery round be distinctive and additive, especially with the "Hollywood" factor of
outdoor archery?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A big a fan as I am of field archery, I'd rather see indoor compound archery included first. Vegas has proven for decades what a spectacle it can be. Can you imagine Olympic indoor compound archery? I think it would be very entertaining to watch.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

It has been said before, but i would like to see a competition similar to track and field and decathalon,

Three distinct archery events, where you compete in any or all as individual events, and an all around competition. That would be cool.

Barebow 3D, Compound Vegas, Oly Star FITA.


----------



## FiFi (Dec 4, 2002)

They could simply use the WA Field format for eliminations,


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> A big a fan as I am of field archery, I'd rather see indoor compound archery included first. Vegas has proven for decades what a spectacle it can be. Can you imagine Olympic indoor compound archery? I think it would be very entertaining to watch.


it would be a great addition to the Winter games if its indoor. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> it would be a great addition to the Winter games if its indoor.
> 
> 
> Chris


Would have to be on snow or ice to get in. I had the same thought before I realized that though.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Yes, you are right. I didnt think about that.

Chris


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I did hear a rumour that indoor compound was being looked at, possibly for 2024.

Don't know how true it is. 

I can't really see them giving extra medals to exsisting athletes though.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If it were up to me, I would put compound in the Olympics, indoors at 18 meters. That's where that discipline really shines. It's where the top competition is, the most competitive history, and the greatest spectacle. I think it would be a great addition to the games.


----------

