Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Since this horse isn't dead yet...

I looked through the Recurve Men's individual eliminations to see how the match play was working out relative to actual scores, this is what I have found:

Out of the 60 completed matches, there are 3 instances of a lower total score winning the match. None of these occurred until the 1/8 elimination round. There was one match with a tie in score, but a clear 4-2 win, which really doesn't tell us much.

1/8 elimination:

Fisseux (49,54,56) = 159 WINNER 4-2
Champia (54,53,55) = 162

There were 2 of these situations in the 1/4 eliminations:
#1
Terry (28,30,25,26,24) = 133 WINNER 6-5
Ba. Tsyrempilov (28,27,27,24,28) = 134

In the above match, after 5 sets the score was 5-5, a tie-break arrow was shot, and Simon Terry shot a 9 to the Russian's 8. Wouldn't a simpler tie break be to just use the score?

#2
Valladont (24,25,26,27,27) = 129 WINNER 6-4
Bi. Tsyrempilov (27,29,23,26,25) = 130

No tie break on the above, by the set system rules, Valladont wins outright, by winning 3 of 5 sets.

In the above 2 quarter final situations, the higher seeded archer won. But in the Champia-Fisseuz match the number 1 seed was taken out.

So in a nut shell, there was 1 "upset" out of the above situations. But in the other 2 instances, a higher seeded archer won the matches by winning the sets in lieu of the total.

Obviously it'll be very interesting to see how the final matches work themselves out. But at least in the recurve men, I can't say that 3 matches ending this way speaks volumes about the system being not working. It actually seems to have worked out well.

If Ba. Tsyrempilov and Bi. Tsyrempilov are related...that sucks, they both lost with higher scores.

Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Nice research man. I was wondering if anyone would go through for the scores.

If the Tsyrempilovs are related, that's got to be the worst luck of all time for a family. Taken out by low scores in the set system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
In the compound 1/32 round Elzinga shot a better score than Bartol, but Bartol moved forward.....


1/ 707 1 ELZINGA Peter NED 3 T9 (59,56,60)
64/ 677 64 BARTOL Vladimir CRO 4 T10 (59,57,55)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
I think using the total for all ends is a bit off when comparing to the "old way"...in the Elzinger example above, he would have lost 116-115 after 12 arrows...so if anything the new system gave him a second chance.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
I think using the total for all ends is a bit off when comparing to the "old way"...in the Elzinger example above, he would have lost 116-115 after 12 arrows...so if anything the new system gave him a second chance.
Posted via Mobile Device
Interesting point you made. I really like the set system, I think it makes the whole game more exciting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
Some thoughts

On the compound side there were 6 times on the womens side and at least 6 times on the mens side that the matches went to the person with the lowest score after 12 arrows. One lady on her way to the medal round won two matches in a row with lower 12 arrow scores than the opponents. Pagni, who is shooting for gold, would have lost his first match of the day. A Lady shooting for a medal got through all the rounds by shooting 12 arrow matches of 109, 111, 109, 109, 105. Another lady who beat Salvi, world indoor and outdoor champion in 2007 beat her in the set system but lost on the old 12 arrow system 109-105. Neither shot real well but when the lady moved on, her first 12 arrows in the next match amounted to 99. Exciting? Maybe, but I'm still unconvinced of how valid it all is. We haven't seen the true system yet as the first true hit or miss set system comes up in Turkey. No one will be able make these comparisons anymore as scores will no longer be able to be determined. It's all very interesting and we have to give it time, but, presently I have the feeling the competition is being watered down some. Only time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Evolution of the Olympic Round since 1992:

1) 12 arrows matches
2) 18 and 12 arrows matches
3) 12 arrows matches again
4) 3x6 and 5x3 arrows sets

From 1 to 2 was made to give more stability to the results in comparison to the qualification round
2 to 3 was clearly a mistake made in order to speed up the competition, but situation went back to the problems in 1

Then, we have now solution 4.
It can't be seen by itself, as it does not work at full with 32nd of finals, as the pairing chart remains as it was before, but has some different meaning if you look to the chart of the 64th of finals that will be used at World Championships. In that case, the top 8 of the qualification round go directly to the 16th of finals with 2 byes, then they enter in the set system matches.

So, clearly the new system has been designed to try to address the aeternal problem of OR about top ranked archers often not going to the finals.

For sure in these terms the new set system practically seems to be unaffective in this regard, at least in the 32nd of finals pairing chart like in Porec. Unpredictable victories continue to happen, more or less with the same frequence like in the past, just sometime with opposite results. If none of the top 6 RM has reached the finals, the system has failed to show any difference from before.

But, one thing is surely better than before: now ALL matches will be decided by the last 3 arrows or by a shoot off, keeping the interst of the potential spectators to the match to very LAST arrow. And for TV purpose, this is a LOT better than before, were a final match could be decided by the FIRST bad arrow of the 12 to shoot.

Soon or later FITA will finally understand that keeping hundreds of people shooting very few arrows in one entire day just to generate the top 4 for the TV without granting to TV that these can really be the best of the field is a waste of time and money for eveybody.
The perfect formula already exists in FITA and is the one used at World Games (Field archery). 2 days of qualification and then top 4 go directly to televised semifinals. Easy, efficient and granting all needed results.
OR is born around 18 years ago, may be in another 18 years......
 

·
NFAA
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
Just to show how much the new set system has opened up everyone's chances....the #59 ranked compound male is shooting for the Gold! I think the previous system would have made this a monumental task! I think that if you can now qualify, you've got a real chance to make it all the way!

SB
 

·
Genesis 21:20
Joined
·
20,708 Posts
Perhaps. It's certainly a different dynamic. Of course, the statistical chances of a lower ranked archer CONTINUALLY outshooting higher ranked archers will always be very low. And yet, we will all continue to focus on the minority of matches that are "upsets" and dwell on them, while the vast majority of higher ranked archers will move on and win 90% of the time. Not sure why that is. Human nature I guess.

Human nature will also cause 50% of folks to see the following statement as a problem:

I think that if you can now qualify, you've got a real chance to make it all the way!
while the other 50% will view it as an opportunity. It's a glass half empty/half full argument, I think...

The point made earlier about every match coming down to the last three arrows is a good one, and not one I'd considered. I kinda like that view.

John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Its proven that "stars" drive interest in the sport...that more people watch a sport when the names/faces are recognizable...a great example would be the PGA tour when Tiger is playing vs. events he skips...using any format which increases the "luck factor" is counter intuitive to getting the majority of better archers to the final...and is counter productive if you wish to promote the sport /have people follow your event...we already struggle with anonimity...but we fall even further behind when the final includes the 57th ranked archer in the event...that is a fact....and again, its proven in every sport worldwide....FITA has recognized this, and are giving higher ranked archers a buy into the later rounds of match play at world championship events.....now following this..they must recognize the importance of the elite archers presence in the final rounds...so why then have they gone to a system for world cups that inhibits the very thing they say is important, and that they promote at their championships?(note: I am not saying that the new system is any worse or better than the previous system...just that any system which eliminates 1/2 the field based on such a small sample of arrows so early on is prone to these issues)
As Vittorio suggests, the system used at FITA World Field is much better, and still accomplishesthe other goals FITA has.

"Perhaps. It's certainly a different dynamic. Of course, the statistical chances of a lower ranked archer CONTINUALLY outshooting higher ranked archers will always be very low. And yet, we will all continue to focus on the minority of matches that are "upsets" and dwell on them, while the vast majority of higher ranked archers will move on and win 90% of the time. Not sure why that is. Human nature I guess."

While "upsets" may be ok for those watching at home...imagine your the archer who spend thousands to go to the event...just to get a bad draw...while some nations have decent funding, many many archers are on their own dime at these events...and many nations spend a great deal sending the rest. When a format is such that sending archers becomes a lottery, it becomes tough to justify spending money sending an archer, knowing they can shoot very well and still end up "T33"...to qualify for past Olympics, you had to be top 42 at worlds to win a spot for your country on the line at the Olympics...one bad match..one bad draw..and it could cost your country tens of thousands of dollars in funding...a spot at the Olympics...etc etc...by removing predictibility from our sport, we limit its appeal with those who fund sport...we make it harder for countries to achieve the consistant, reliable results that those who fund sport look for as a measure of success....none of which is good for archery.
 

·
Indifferent User
Joined
·
280 Posts
Seems to me I read somewhere- FITA webiste maybe? this was one of the bigger World Cup turnouts so far. Seems like participation is growing and the new system certainly doesn't seem to have hurt the USA shooters...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Its proven that "stars" drive interest in the sport...that more people watch a sport when the names/faces are recognizable...a great example would be the PGA tour when Tiger is playing vs. events he skips...using any format which increases the "luck factor" is counter intuitive to getting the majority of better archers to the final...and is counter productive if you wish to promote the sport /have people follow your event...we already struggle with anonimity...but we fall even further behind when the final includes the 57th ranked archer in the event...that is a fact....and again, its proven in every sport worldwide....FITA has recognized this, and are giving higher ranked archers a buy into the later rounds of match play at world championship events.....now following this..they must recognize the importance of the elite archers presence in the final rounds...so why then have they gone to a system for world cups that inhibits the very thing they say is important, and that they promote at their championships?(note: I am not saying that the new system is any worse or better than the previous system...just that any system which eliminates 1/2 the field based on such a small sample of arrows so early on is prone to these issues)
As Vittorio suggests, the system used at FITA World Field is much better, and still accomplishesthe other goals FITA has.

"Perhaps. It's certainly a different dynamic. Of course, the statistical chances of a lower ranked archer CONTINUALLY outshooting higher ranked archers will always be very low. And yet, we will all continue to focus on the minority of matches that are "upsets" and dwell on them, while the vast majority of higher ranked archers will move on and win 90% of the time. Not sure why that is. Human nature I guess."

While "upsets" may be ok for those watching at home...imagine your the archer who spend thousands to go to the event...just to get a bad draw...while some nations have decent funding, many many archers are on their own dime at these events...and many nations spend a great deal sending the rest. When a format is such that sending archers becomes a lottery, it becomes tough to justify spending money sending an archer, knowing they can shoot very well and still end up "T33"...to qualify for past Olympics, you had to be top 42 at worlds to win a spot for your country on the line at the Olympics...one bad match..one bad draw..and it could cost your country tens of thousands of dollars in funding...a spot at the Olympics...etc etc...by removing predictibility from our sport, we limit its appeal with those who fund sport...we make it harder for countries to achieve the consistant, reliable results that those who fund sport look for as a measure of success....none of which is good for archery.
I can only agree 100% to your entire post.

As said, soon or later (to be taken in terms of several years at minimum) also FITA will uderstand... Hoping we wil still be at the Olympic games by that time, as also soon or later the Lord of the Rings will unfortunately undersatand that in this formt our sport has nothing to do with .... real sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I too was surprised to see #59 shooting for Gold until I checked the record. Sam KYRITSOGLOU is a member of the Belgian national team, he shot a World Record as a Junior 9 years ago and he beat Roger, Dietmar and Reo on his way to the finals in sets and under raw score of the first 12 arrows. Wow, great shooting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
Differences in compound start to be so tiny, that I'm not at all surprised to see lower seeded archers advancing. Let's see if hit/miss brings something new to the game.

But personally I'd love to see world champs rules, 8 first seeded advancing straight in every competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Its proven that "stars" drive interest in the sport...that more people watch a sport when the names/faces are recognizable...a great example would be the PGA tour when Tiger is playing vs. events he skips...using any format which increases the "luck factor" is counter intuitive to getting the majority of better archers to the final...

...by removing predictibility from our sport, we limit its appeal with those who fund sport...we make it harder for countries to achieve the consistant, reliable results that those who fund sport look for as a measure of success....none of which is good for archery.
Tennis is played in sets, and usually the better player wins the match, but sometimes they don't. That doesn't seem to hurt tennis' popularity any.

And as to predictability, Formula 1 racing is very popular here in Germany, but after the 3rd straight season of Michael Schumacher winning almost every race and becoming world champ year in, year out (predictable) it started to wear thin and lose popularity. Why is heavyweight boxing no fun to watch anymore? Because it's predictable.

Oh no, I would have to say that by creating new potentials, new chances for archers who ranked lower, FITA has helped bring new excitement to the Olympic Round!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
The tennis anology doesn't work...if tennis matches lasted 5 minutes you wouldn't see them on TV either...it would be total guess who would win any day..we'd have never heard of Nadal or Federer...of course more mid level players would have a chance...but it's not what you want at a world level elite event...don't get me wrong, match play has a place in archery...but the present changes(set system and especially hit/miss) has in essence given midlevel archers a handicap that allows them to compete more often with the elite.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Apparently the Olympic quotas will be largely based on team results at FITA worlds, with some individual spots availible at continental qualifiers.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top