How CLOSE are the top competitors?

[tracker]

How close are the top competitors at the Olympics?

How many points out of what are the differences in scores?

Mick.

[recurve boy]

Well, IIRC, the difference in women's individual gold and bronze in 2000 was less than 10 points.

[tracker]

10 points out of how many in total?

[frommy]

Tracker,

The points in the Oly Games, and World Champs, are decided on match play, and that is a mental game as well as an archery game. You cannot simply look at the points.

For example, Tim Cuddihy was down 5 points in the semi final with a Korean opponent, with three arrows to go in a twelve arrow round, but yet he won that and went on to claim the World Junior Recurve title.

Jim Park has reported on that match on another stream.

Your question is not simple.

Brian

[tracker]

Hey Brian, :D

thanks for the info. By Matchplay do you mean it's one on one competition rather than just everyone shooting for a score as a group? I didn't know this.. that WOULD turn it into a major mental game! More like tennis than golf if you get me. :D

So in the final at the Olympics that our fellow won last time, what was the score difference out of how many points? Anyone know?

Is it possible to lose a medal by missing with one bad arrow? Is it that close?

Mick.

[Marcus]

Matchplay is brutal, however the cream rises to the top.

At the World Champs last year in Mens Compound the difference between 1st and 64th at 70m was about 8 points. That's .22 points per arrows over the range.
However in the finals it was the top 2 shooting for the prize.

Recurve seems a little different. The gap is wider, but still very close. However it is very very possible that a high qualifyer will be eliminated.
The Olympics are not a good one because you get duffer countries competing which spreads the gap somewhat.
However if we look at Sydney and it's top 16
Highest Qualifyer: 665
Lowest Qualifyer: 603 (past champion as well)
Average: 636

So while we are looking at a 60 point gap, the majority are very close.

However the interesting thing is that if you look at the next 2 matches by the guy who shot 603 we would have shot about a 646, showing his ranking meant little.

First round (only top 16 chosen)
Highest: 172
Lowest: 151

Second Round
Highest: 166
Lowest: 153

Third Round
Highest: 171
Lowest: 153

Forth Round
Highest: 113
Lowest: 102

5th Round
Highest: 112
Lowest: 107

Finals
Highest: 113
Lowest: 106


SO there is often a gap, but the numbers don't tell the whole story.
Often an archer will shoot a monster score in one round and just win then an avergae score the next and walk away with it.

[frommy]

Mick,

The qualifier event is 72 arrows at 70m. That then ranks the top 64 archers.

First round is 18 arrows at 70 \m No. 1 against No.64, No. 2 against 63 etc, loosers go out leaving 32 in.

Second round also 18 arrows, loosers out leaving 16

Third round out of 12 arrows, loosers out leaving 8

Fouth round 12 arrows, loosers out leaving 4

Fifth round 12 arrows, winners go through to gold/silver match and loosers go to bronze match.

Further to what Marcus said, Michele Frangilli, one of the best recurvers in the world, qualified in 53rd in the recent European GP event, then went on to win Gold.

Brian

[Clare Barnes]

Third round out of 12 arrows, loosers out leaving 8

Brian

Third round is out of 18 arrows.

[frommy]

:oops: Sorry

[Marianne Rieckmann]

The following graphs may be of interest... looking at the 18 arrow matches from the last two Olympics.
As you can see a score of 167 will win the match, and a score of 161 or over has a good chance of winning.
http://www.targetplot.com.au/pictures/OlympicMen.jpg
For the women a score of 159 and over has a high chance of winning.
http://www.targetplot.com.au/pictures/OlympicWomen.jpg
Of course, these statistics do not mean much when you are out there shooting in a match... :-?
Also this is still not a good sample size. After I add in the 2004 Olympics and the last three World Target scores it will be a better representation.

[DrRalph]

Good stuff Marianne. Do you have similar for the 12 arrow rounds. It looks like the 18 arrow rounds are only marginally separating archers, ie it is not uncommon for a pretty goodo score to lose, or even quite low scores to win. The distributions are wide and overlap a fair bit, but it'd be good to do the same for the 12 arrow rounds to see if there is a significant difference or not.

This is a good way to visualise the process, I like it.

R

[frommy]

I am impressed as well. Thanks Marianne.

Brian

[Marianne Rieckmann]

Here is a similar graph for the 12 arrow matches. To get a better sample size I've included the last 3 World Target events as well as the 2 Olympics.
http://www.targetplot.com.au/pictures/Men12Arrow.jpg
http://www.targetplot.com.au/pictures/Women12Arrow.jpg :halfrobot:

[Clare Barnes]

I interpret Marianne's wonderful graph that only 4 men have lost a match shooting 113 or more over 2 Olympics and 3 World Champs! :o

Makes you realise how unlucky Tim and David were to finish 5th at the Turkish Grand Prix and the Junior Worlds respectively, both being knocked out after shooting 113 in the 1/4 finals! :(

[2Dogs]

Oh I just put that down to too much Burbeon :wink:

[Marcus]

Yep hat is right Clare
In 19 cases an archer has shot over 113 an in 4 of those cases lost. This means you have a 79% chance of winning a match if you shoot 133 or higher.

[grantwomack]

if you shoot 133 or higher.

Now that would be an impressive score! Either impressively bad for an 18 arrow match or impossibly impressive in a 12 arrow match! :D :D

[DrRalph]

Interesting, it certainly looks at first glance that the 12 arrow results do indeed have a greater overlap between the winning and losing scores than the 18 arrow rounds for men. That is, enough men archers can shoot 113 often enough that 113 is not a guarantee of a win by any means. All are capable to do it on the day, and the longer round is needed to give the better archers a better chance of winning.

Another way, I'd say from these plots that the 18 arrows can separate the very best male archers more reliably (which I wasn't sure of before) , and that overall all the males are so generally close in ability at this level of competition that the 12 arrow rounds is not clearly separating the very best from the just the best (which I suspected but hadn't quantified).

For the Women in on the other hand the 12 arrow round seems to still have a separation between winning scores and losing scores similar to the 18 arrow rounds. A group of high scorers above 112 are in there that are regular wining scores (ie a minority of the best archers can shoot that well). The round is hard enough that in just 12 arrows the best women archers can really get ahead. Whereas in the men's finals the outcome is a little more open.

It is nice to see some data. Good initial question!

[DrRalph]

Where'd everybody go? :robot:

OK short answer:

The men are so close it is difficult to predict a winner in the finals.

Women are close too, but there are a smaller number who are clearly ahead of the majority.

[James Park]

I have done some extensive analysis of matchplay (both 12 arrow and 18 arrow matches - the amount of calculations is truly monstrous).
If you take a particular archer, for example one who averages 1335 for a FITA, his average end at 70M will be around 55 and for a 12 arrow match about 110. However, while that will be his average, he will not score exactly that for every end - there will be a spread of end scores.
Similarly, if we take an archer who averages 1300 for a FITA, his average end at 70M will be around 54 and for a 12 arrow match about 108. Again, he will not get that every end but will have a spread of scores. Hence, while we would expect the 1325 archer to beat the 1300 archer, that may not be the case because the better archer may have a poor end and the lesser archer a good end. As the number of arrows in the match reduces, the likelihood of the lesser archer winning increases.
If you work out the statistics for such a match we get the following set of likely scores. In this case, the better archer is likely to win 70% of the time and the lesser archer 30% of the time. That is, there is a considerable probability that the lesser archer will win.
http://www.archery-forum.com/uploads/mp1.JPG
If instead we take a 1350 archer vs our 1300 archer, the probabilities change. In this case, our better archer should win 87% of the time and the lesser archer 13% of the time. Again, there is a reasonable possibility of the lesser archer winning, even though the better archer can be expected to average about 113 for a 12 arrow match.
http://www.archery-forum.com/uploads/mp2.JPG
That is: a short matchplay event is a very risky affair for the better archers. Even where the better archer is considerably better than his apponent there is still a reasonable probability that he will lose. The probability is that even though the lesser archer might have a lucky match and knock out a potential champion, it is not likely that the lesser archer will get through more than a round - the statistics are against him. However, a poor archer can quite easily have a brief moment of fame (and destroy the prospects of our worthy champion in the process).
I have analysed the results of several World Archery Championships, looking at the correlation between ranking position and final position and the correlation is not strong, demonstrating that we do indeed get these turn-overs. I have also analysed the scores to see if we get "70M experts" who score more than they should at 70M in relation to their FITA scores - we do not get them.

[Marianne Rieckmann]

I found it interest that the top scores shot by the women are similar to the men, but the average spread of all the scores show that the women are around 2 or 3 point lower than the men. :o
Wish that was the case for my scores, 2 or 3 points behind David and I'd be cruising 8)

Interesting stats Jim. Should have known that you had done the math on matchplays. :wink:

[clever_guy]

"destroy the prospects of our worthy champion in the process"

Not much of a *worthy* champion in that case, just another has-been who couldn't put it together for 12-18 arrows..

;)

More arrows per matchplay set is a better indicator of the better archer, but it has it's limits, how many arrows is fair 24? 36? 144?. A better idea is a J-Ladder format where a "second-chance" pool of archers is formed after they get knocked out in matchplay, and then have a chance to shoot against the other knocked out archers for a chance to shoot against the matchplay winners in the first pool. Unfortunately it is logistically harder to organize and I would doubt you could fit it into the set schedule for archery in the Olympics.

-CG

[gt]

better idea is a J-Ladder format where a "second-chance" pool of archers is formed after they get knocked out in matchplay, and then have a chance to shoot against the other knocked out archers for a chance to shoot against the matchplay winners in the first pool. Unfortunately it is logistically harder to organize and I would doubt you could fit it into the set schedule for archery in the Olympics.

Sure it's manageable within the schedule, just not at a cut of 64.


The J-Ladder is the way to go once the pool is down to, say, eight. It's quite manageable at that level, but the problem is, will it be UNDERSTANDABLE to spectators and reporters.

I think the answer is yes, but I have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate the intelligence of the average Olympic archery spectator (as opposed to a "dedicated" spectator who actually bought an archery ticket on purpose...)

There will be an effort to introduce a J-Ladder for the World Championships, where it is clearly a desirable way to go. We don't have to be as concerned with the appearance or transparancy of the process at the WC.

With the Olympics being more of a "showcase" it would be counterproductive to push it there. The current system really is the way to go for the purpose of the Games.


By the way, here's a link to a J-Ladder diagram for those mystified by the reference. It's called that because it was invented by Janelle Cooper, wife of Jeff Cooper, back in the 1960's.

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/14th_Ed_US_html/14th_Ed_US_Rules.12.html

[clever_guy]

gt;

As we discussed on a previous thread, I think you have to use the J-Ladder format at 64 or 32 in order to fullfill the "fairness" criteria, but it becomes pretty unwieldly at that point..

;)

-CG

[gt]

CG,

Life isn't inherently "fair" and neither is anything that's workable for the purposes of this discussion. :)

[clever_guy]

"workable for the purposes of this discussion."

If the powers that be would just allow us to structure the archery segment for the Olympics first, and then let those other piddly sports have their turn - then we could design something complexly grand..

:) ;)

-CG

[DrRalph]

gt;

As we discussed on a previous thread, I think you have to use the J-Ladder format at 64 or 32 in order to fullfill the "fairness" criteria, but it becomes pretty unwieldly at that point..

;)

-CG

Going by the recent performance stats for the men's division, the 18 arrow round still has some discrimination power, but the 12 arrow round is struggling a bit. If you alter the straight elimination format then the 12 arrow finals are where you'd want to do it first.

You can think of a number of options for the Olympics: a 32 archer cut after the ranking round to remove the first elimination round, then either a more sophisticated matchplay - J-Ladder, round robin whatever, that improve the statistics. Or simply increase the arrows shot to 36 and 24,
doubling the arrows should reduce the variations by a factor of about 1.4
and Jim's graphs will clearly separate the 1320s from the 1300 shooters.

It doesn't seem to be quite so urgent in the women's finals, but it surely is only a matter of time as techniques and skill rise and exceed the rounds ability to discriminate.

my 2c
R

[Aarleks]

I think the fact that statistically there is a good chance the 'lesser' archer can win is good. That's what makes for good watching (and in the case of the Olympics it is a showcase as GT said). Further, from the point of view of a lesser archer it makes good playing too. I know going into a match against someone much better than me that if I can hold it together and they have a bad arrow (or two or three :oops: :D ) that I can win. That makes the game much more dramatic.

In the case of WACs I can see the point. But I think it should simply be that the winner of the FITA is the World Champ and the winner of the Matchplay (if it is held) is the Matchplay Champ. However, I think that if that was the case the media would always look to who won the matchplay as it makes a better story. So we may end up with the Matchplay becomming the focus again.

Certainly in the case of the Oympics we want the format to be a dramatic as possible, with a good chance of upsets, and for it to be TV friendly. The present Matchplay system meets those criteria.

[clever_guy]

"Or simply increase the arrows shot to 36 and 24,
doubling the arrows should reduce the variations by a factor of about 1.4"

Yeah right, you still get archers pissing and moaning that they need more arrows to find the true "best" archer - and then someone will pull out Excel and run statistics to "prove" that 12 more arrows will do the trick. The reality is that if you can't do it in 18 arrows (3 ends) you just can't do it. AFAIAK this "statistical" modeling is mental masturbation for armchair archers. If you want to create a system where there is "fairness" as well as efficiency then adapt the J-Ladder at 64 or 32 archers, that gives everyone (well almost) a chance to recover from one bad matchplay set in the loser pool and work their way back to potentially win the tourney.

Now fitting 18 arrow matchplay sets and 32-64 archer J-Ladder into a tourney - that might take some logistical planning as it would most likely increase the time constraints and potentially the size of the playing field. As GT mentioned this is something that has to be tested and refined before you could drop it into the Olympics. As far as spectators go , I think it's doable, but it would probably mean adding some visual guides for the spectators such as color coding the shooting line, and using the Jumbotron to display more info.

-CG

[James Park]

I have no problem with the current format for the Olympics. The Olympics is, after all, as GT said a showcase. It is much more about TV than about picking the best archer, and I understand that for good TV we need quick action and a result every 5 to 10 minutes (to fit in with the requirements of the audience and advertisers).
CG is ignoring the statistical fact that every archer does have a spread of results, and hence even our best archer will have matches where his score is a bit low and endangers his progress. As DrRalph noted, the statistical spread is much worse for small numbers of arrows, and hence in those circumstances we are much more likely to have upsets. However, as Aarleks noted, perhaps that is ok for TV (although it is quite ugly for the archers).
I do think, however, that the World Championships should be much more an "archers' event", and more oriented towards picking the best archer rather than the luckiest archer.
While matchplay has its place, it can also be dangerous, and I can give an example: In selecting Australia's recurve team for WAC97, eight men qualified and went to the shoot-off. I was one of those (but was in bed with flu for the previous week). We shot a FITA, and my score was a poor one (1240) and I ranked eight out of eight. Hence, I had virtually no chance of making the team. However, I resolved to make a nuisance of myself in the matchplay rounds that followed. I beat Jackson Fear (qualified 1st), Simon Fairweather (qualified 2nd), and Matt Gray (qualified about 4th), even though they are all vastly much better recurvers than me. By my calculations, in beating Matt Gray I excluded him from the team - if he had beaten me he would have been in, and he had a good score for that match. In my other matches I lost reasonably convincingly. Perhaps then, this was a poor use of matchplay as it probably did not get the best result.

[DrRalph]

Yeah right, you still get archers pissing and moaning that they need more arrows to find the true "best" archer - and then someone will pull out Excel and run statistics to "prove" that 12 more arrows will do the trick. The reality is that if you can't do it in 18 arrows (3 ends) you just can't do it. AFAIAK this "statistical" modeling is mental masturbation for armchair archers.If you want to create a system where there is "fairness" as well as efficiency then adapt the J-Ladder at 64 or 32 archers, that gives everyone (well almost) a chance to recover from one bad matchplay set in the loser pool and work their way back to potentially win the tourney.


OOK. I guess it depends whether you want to find the most accurate archer, or have a spectacle where anyone has at least a chance. I was also merely pointing out that the 12 arrow matchplay in the mens division looks like it is losing it's discriminating power. I was not proving anything, or trying to. I suggest doubling the arrow to reduce the sampling noise by Sqrt(2). Infact, you'd probably have to at least double the number of measurement to improve the reliability of any real world system that depends on random fluctuations, archery or not. 10 or a hundred times more is clearly not even desireable.

I don't really mind. But if you want to make the rounds more reliable for the better archers to come through you can only:

1) make the round harder to increase the differences - ie shoot at 90m or more, but this is not stadium friendly

2) increase the number of arrows per round to sample the archers arrow distribution better, a factor of 2 or more would be needed to make a real difference, otherwise don't bother.

3) increase the number of matches, and hence arrows, by allowing a recovery from a loss for example in the J-Ladder

Thats it. Take you pick or live with higher probabilities of fluke wins. Statements along the lines of "if you can't do it in 18 arrows then more won't help" is simply that, a statement. Marianne's great data compilation of real life actual championship scores gives us a chance to go beyond 'gut feeling' 'experience based' statements.

I personally think the Olympics is taking a big risk if the perception grows that the outcome is becoming more random in the competition, as all the archers converge in ability. If it gets to the point where the winner is no longer necessarily the best, that undermines the prestige and impact of the win. An upset is Ok now and again, but if number 50 + wins too many times it will wear off pretty quick, to the detriment of archery and the olympics. IMHO

The J-ladder may be the way to go in the end, will 18 arrows all the way to gold, but you can't make an informed decision without exploring the other options *objectively*. The politics of what you are after is another matter.

PS I resent the "mental masturbation" comment - unnecessary and I found it offensive. I may not be a great archer, but that is not a qualification for analysing or even commenting on simple measurement data.

[Marcus]

I think the 12 arrow format is fine because one thing that is often lost in statisical analysis is the pressure factor.
When you are shooting 36 arrows or 144 arrows you have time for nerves to settle down and mount a comeback. Even in the 18 arrow round this is possible because the anxiety level for winning archers can increase in the last end. Also in 18 arrow you are shooting to a normal routine.
In 12 arrow you get broken up. You shoot in turn and you have 40 seconds per shot. You know your competitors score so you have to deal with that. Each shot becomes so much more important and how you deal with it becomes vital. If you can draw, aim and execute that shot correctly you are doing well.
We shoot indoor matchplay at my club. We get quite a few high qualifying scores, then high first round scores and then as we get closer to the finals things become quieter in the hall and people start taking longer. Those shots in the finals are not the same shots as shot in the first round.

I think 12 arrows is plenty to determine the winner.

I do like the Field format too, perhaps
FITA, top 64
Double 70m of remaining, take top 32
Single 70m of remaining, take top 16
Matchplay from there.

Don't know anything about the J-Ladder, will read up on it.

[clever_guy]

"CG is ignoring the statistical fact that every archer does have a spread of results, and hence even our best archer will have matches where his score is a bit low and endangers his progress."

That is why we have more than 1 end in matchplay. The point you are missing though is that you have to measure the volume of arrows in a matchplay set against the efficiency of the overall game. If you get the odd match where a lower ranked archer outscores a high ranked archer - well welcome to competitive sports! It happens. Sometimes it is the lower ranked archer playing the odds and getting lucky and sometimes it is the higher ranked archer blowing it. I say again *if you can't do it in 18 arrows you probably can't do it at all*, that's 3 ends to account for weather variables, equipment adjustments, mental blunders and general goof-ups - if you can't do that you aren't the best archer - you are the guy sitting out the tourney. Trying to re-design the game to comply to a statistical model may do little more than skew the game to perspective of those doing the modeling.

"I do think, however, that the World Championships should be much more an "archers' event", and more oriented towards picking the best archer rather than the luckiest archer."

So how do you define the *best* archer? You are trying to make the case that the *best* archer is the one who shoots the best score over the highest volume of arrows is the best archer. This isn't necessarily true. That archer may the one with the best endurance, but s/he may not be the *best* archer. There may be an archer who can shoot any 72 arrow round better than archer who does better with "Grand FITA" (4 day) rounds. There may also be archers who shoot 18 arrow rounds better than 72 arrow rounds or Grand FITA rounds. To draw an analogy the cyclist who wins the Yellow Jersey (overall) Tour De France may not be the best cyclist in the world as he has trained for the overall in the TdF. He may not win the sprint jersey, he may not win the mountain jersey, he may be a terrible Crit rider, but he is the best (for that time) in the overall TdF. Likewise in archery there maybe matchplay specialists who excel in matchplay rounds over longer formats like FITA 144 or Grand FITA. Other high caliber archers will certainly be in the same range (and maybe some mediocre archers) but the matchplay specialist will dominate his/her format.

This is why "statistical" analysis is so much mental masturbation for armchair archers - you can use it to skew "statistical truth" in any direction, especially if you are looking to prove a pet theory or personal perspective. You also are likely to view the data itself as more "valid" than it really is. On any given end (or arrow) in any given tournament one archer will make a better calculation and put together a better shot - if s/he happens to do that enough then s/he wins that match, and maybe even that tournament. If they beat what some armchair statistician wants to consider the better "statistical" archer - so what, it just demonstrates the what competitive sport is all about, you put it on the line, you do your best, and on any given day no one can with any certainty predict a winner - as it should be. "Oh but archer A has won every major tourney with an average end of 58 points where the altitude is below 10,000 ft, and the wind is below 2 knots..." - well BFD, he couldn't pull it together for 18 arrows at today

[Robert de Bondt]

For the Olympics only, I feel that the top 16 qualifiers of the 64 archers in a Single 70M FITA round should battle it out in a knock out competition of 12 arrow matches.
Already the Qualifying round is not accessible to the public and in matchplay who really wants to see no.1 "slaughter" no.64? Fair enough there maybe some upsets, but for archery to stay in the Olympics the general public, who would probably know SFA about archery anyway, want to see drama and tension, which 12 arrow matches provide, expressed already so eloquently before.
I don't think any of the medal winners in previous Olympics, came from outside the top 16 qualifiers (I'm sure someone will prove me wrong :wink: ) so why drag the event out, as most preliminary matches draw very little crowds anyway.

[gt]

If it gets to the point where the winner is no longer necessarily the best, that undermines the prestige and impact of the win. An upset is Ok now and again, but if number 50 + wins too many times it will wear off pretty quick, to the detriment of archery and the olympics. IMHO


And precisely how often has "#50" won the Olympic Games ?

I think one might make a good case for the idea that the 2000 Games did indeed pick the best archer on the field in both divisions.

It's true that in 96, the male winner didn't have to take out any Koreans, but he did defeat the one man who defeated them, in a shoot-off.

Which reminds me...

I have watched one high level coach from another country swear up and down how "unfair" and "random" matchplay is when his top archer loses a big tourney. How matchplay favours "poorer" archers and "better" archers lose out. Yet when his top archer wins you never hear a word...


Yeah, I really had to bite my tongue about that fellow after WAC NYC last year too, CG :)


I still think a 64 or J Ladder is unworkable for the purposes at hand here.

If you could see all of the procedural information I have had to memorize just to deal with what I have to do in Athens next week for our "nice simple" OR you might agree !

[James Park]

I would keep the matchplay as it is for the Olympics. Afterall, it is the TV and high-profile attendees to the event that matters here, and we need the fast action and upsets.

gt,
Any idea why the ranking round is not open to spectators? I know it might not appeal to the general public as much as the matchplay, but as an archer it would be interesting to watch, especially with some good commentary.

[gt]

gt,
Any idea why the ranking round is not open to spectators? I know it might not appeal to the general public as much as the matchplay, but as an archer it would be interesting to watch, especially with some good commentary.

I think the issues are severalfold as to why the RR is a closed event:

-The ranking field isn't set up for spectators (security issues). As you know the finals venue isn't big enough for the RR. There is nothing in the ticketing system either.

-The concern that media will attend the RR and then report negatively on the interest of archery as a sport is a valid one (this happened in Barcelona- archery was panned in Sports Illustrated, a very widely distributed magazine, by a reporter who went to the FITA round and never bothered to come back for the OR)

-There won't be any "good commentary" during the RR, the FITA commentator will be busy training with the production staff at the finals stadium (where mistakes are not an option).

-Finally, the RR isn't technically part of the Games, as the Athlete Oath and declaration of opening isn't until a couple of days after.

On the other hand I think having the RR just before Games time is a much better plan that the other plan that was once floated by certain Europeans... using the World Ranking list for seeding (!).

[James Park]

gt,
Thanks. Good reasons and it makes sense.

[clever_guy]

"PS I resent the "mental masturbation" comment - unnecessary and I found it offensive. I may not be a great archer, but that is not a qualification for analysing or even commenting on simple measurement data."

Ahhh, What's a little mental masturbation? Father Clever_Guy will forgive you all your mental meandering sins...and for penance the church of Clever demands, hmmm...you just got some new kit didn't you?

;) :lol: :lol:

"who really wants to see no.1 "slaughter" no.64?"

Well actually - I do. I would like to see him/her humilated in competition repeatedly, and perhaps made to do some sort of dance with feathers upon final defeat - because everyone must pay some price to go to the Olympics, even Olympic filler...

;) :lol: :lol:

-CG

[DrRalph]

That is why we have more than 1 end in matchplay. The point you are missing though is that you have to measure the volume of arrows in a matchplay set against the efficiency of the overall game.


Fair point, we cant have 144 arrow 'matchplay', there are limitations to work in.

If you get the odd match where a lower ranked archer outscores a high ranked archer - well welcome to competitive sports! It happens.

Heaven help us if it doesn't, but it is a balance thing and not allowing the outcome to be devalued by too many upsets.

Sometimes it is the lower ranked archer playing the odds and getting lucky and sometimes it is the higher ranked archer blowing it. I say again *if you can't do it in 18 arrows you probably can't do it at all*, that's 3 ends to account for weather variables, equipment adjustments, mental blunders and general goof-ups - if you can't do that you aren't the best archer - you are the guy sitting out the tourney.


18 arrows is clearly still discriminating somewhat, as Marianne's collation shows, it is a question of degree. Is it good enough? I'd argue that the 12 arrows are running out of steam, 18 is more or less OK at the moment
if you accept the current levels of upset wins in the early elimination rounds. If you want to reduce the upsets to a smaller level (but not zero) then you consider getting the archers to shoot more arrows, either more per match or more matches


Trying to re-design the game to comply to a statistical model may do little more than skew the game to perspective of those doing the modeling.


Yes, as I said your outcome aims direct your response to the analysis.
My personal position is that I'd like the most accurate archer to be pretty clearly determined by the matches, and keep upsets possible but frankly unlikely, or the win is devalued.


So how do you define the *best* archer? You are trying to make the case that the *best* archer is the one who shoots the best score over the highest volume of arrows is the best archer. This isn't necessarily true. That archer may the one with the best endurance, but s/he may not be the *best* archer. There may be an archer who can shoot any 72 arrow round better than archer who does better with "Grand FITA" (4 day) rounds. There may also be archers who shoot 18 arrow rounds better than 72 arrow rounds or Grand FITA rounds.


This is a core question, right at the heart of the matter. We have to choose as a sport what we mean by the best archer. I *personally* rank a 1360+ recurve FITA round far above a matchplay round win. To me archery is all of mental strength, physical strenght/control *and* endurance. Anyone can shoot 1 good arrow, very good ones can do
12 or 18 good ones, only the best can put down 144 great shots in a row, in my opinion.

I can say what I feel should be the best archer, anyone can. Others can say they want the winner be someone that survives the short sharp risky matchplay as it is now. Someone who can face great risk of coming unstuck and holding up under that pressure.

But that is independant of saying that the 12 arrow rounds are not discriminating well at the level of skill of the current championship archers, and we can always be asking the question as to what level do we want to separate the archers on score and what level should chance play.

[clever_guy]

"if you accept the current levels of upset wins in the early elimination rounds. If you want to reduce the upsets to a smaller level (but not zero) then you consider getting the archers to shoot more arrows, either more per match or more matches"

That's why I suggested the J-Ladder format from 64 or 32 on, it allows that there may be an upset or two, but there the opportunity for "the cream to rise". Without a larger playing field though or stretching it into another day it would be pretty unwieldly. Mind you they could just forgo the 720 elimination round..

"To me archery is all of mental strength, physical strenght/control *and* endurance. Anyone can shoot 1 good arrow, very good ones can do
12 or 18 good ones, only the best can put down 144 great shots in a row, in my opinion."

Yes, but the guys shooting 1320+ are all going to be at the top of the matchplay pack anyway. Don't be fooled by what the data seems to be indicating some 1250 shooter isn't going to have an easy pass against someone like Butch Johnston. If you look a lot of the machplay events in the USA (or internationally) you see the same names on top for alot of the events, and they are most frequently the consistant 1320+ shooters. Sure you get upsets, but it isn't a huge concern. If it was a huge problem you wouldn't have to do much analysis other than "Who won???!?!, From Iraq?!?!?!" ;)

And don't kid yourself, shooting matchplay is no picnic, if you are shooting against a closely matched archer (ie you are both 1320+) there is no accumulated point parachute (as when you have a better 1st day than your competitors in FITA 144) you can fall back on. In tough competition if you win, you just get to shoot against another tough competitior who won his matches. If you are at the level where 2-3 points seporates close competitors per end...whew there's a pressure cooker. You can see in the results of top tourneys where you have archers that do well in FITA 144 but don't consistantly perform in matchplay, it's not the endurance that kills them it's the pressure..

As far as what is better, potatoe potato tomatoe tomato ( ;) ), they are both difficult at a high level. I think indoor is more mentally stressful, field is more enjoyable, FITA 144 you get to shoot 90m (fun!), and matchplay you test your wits, every end...

-CG

[Marcus]

only the best can put down 144 great shots in a row, in my opinion.
Actually I think you could argue this has yet to happen. No one has shot 1440 yet and if you talk to those who have come close they will tall you they could have shot some shots better. ;)

Aarleks said why not have a FITA champ and a Matchplay champ. This is not a good idea. You are either World Champ or you aint. Winning the FITA is not important and by making it so you devalue the matchplay.

If you look at great stories in sport it comes from
* Comeback victories
* Underdogs winning
* Close battles

In a 288 arrow FITA you get none of these, but in Matchplay you do, that's why it is vital to the growth of our sport. Right now we get some publicity, previously we would have gotten none.

[DrRalph]

Good points CG, Marcus.

I'd be prepared to admit the 144 arrow FITA is far from perfected, even by Mr Moon or the Barnsies of this world, and that says it is probably overkill when sorting the top few dozen archers in the world. There may be too little chance for an upset or close battles - The Pace-McKinney contests are remembered still because they are so rare.

I do agree with CG that there is something extra in the stress of matchplay, and it measures another dimension of the archers. However we do need to assess the outcomes and try to achieve a balance that takes into account:

1) The level of uncertainty desired - stress excitement and upsets versus performance rewards.
2) The level of ability of the majority of the highest level archers - ie providing a test that can distinguish between the small group sizes of the very best without blowing out to cricket match proportions.

If most people want a fast exciting matchplay format, fair enough, but you should assess it make sure it is capable of measuring the archers with an appropriate level of certainty, and monitor the situation as archers improve over the years. It doesn't have to be empirical, it can be quantified.

Final PS:
Maybe we can adjust using smaller targets -- 60cm faces at 70m for the Olympic rounds would increase the resolution of the target and improve the sampling of the group sizes. Sort of an extension of the smaller inner 10 X zone, but over all the zones. Think of the savings in target faces alone :)

[James Park]

While I have noted that matchplay is a fine thing for a TV event, it is ugly for archers.
Each round, half of the archers drop off. My experience is that they then take little interest in the event and most leave.
That is, we need to tailor the event to what we are trying to achieve. If it is TV ratings (and hence Olympic money) we need to suit the archery-illiterate audience and fast action for advertisers (in that environment, the satisfaction of the archers is really irrelevant). If it is archer satisfaction we are after, most of them want to shoot right through the event rather than drop out.
Similarly, if you look at the Grand Slam tennis events: half drop off each round, and virtually all of them then fly out that day rather than stay around to watch. That is, it is a media-oriented event, primarily put there to attract corporate entertainment groups, who mostly don't care who they are watching, so long as there is quick action and a good lunch or dinner and lots or wine.
Hence, matchplay has its place, but use it with caution as otherwise we are giving nothing to our average archers.
As Marcus noted, the format used for the World FITA Field Championships is perhaps a better overall approach, with matchplay only used for the medal rounds (however, even then, as one of those who has participated in that event and missed the cut of 16, it very rapidly becomes a boring event from the point of view of the archers who have dropped off).

[Tony Pearce]

Don't be fooled by what the data seems to be indicating some 1250 shooter isn't going to have an easy pass against someone like Butch Johnston.


No it won't be easy but occasionally the good archers ARE beaten by the average archers. This is not a figment of the imagination of armchair archers. It is for the same reason that there is normal distribution of height and weight among the population. A good archer may average e.g 115 for 12 arrows but will shoot higher and lower scores occasionally. Conversely the average archer may average 110 but occasionally his good score will beat the low score from the good archer. It is quite correct for Dr Ralph to say that the 12 arrow round is less discriminating than the 18 arrow round. It is simple mathematics.

Having defended Ralph I do accept that there are many other considerations such as the psychological pressure and TV requirements mentioned in numerous posts above................

[2Dogs]

Have to agree with Jim, in that matchplay doesn't get exciting until the medal rounds....to watch. Playing it is exciting however.

But it is the "game" in vogue these days, and you either go with it, or get off the train :wink:

[gt]

Hence, matchplay has its place, but use it with caution as otherwise we are giving nothing to our average archers.


Small point- the very factor that makes matchplay "dangerous" for accomplished shooters is precisely what appeals to a signifcant number of "ham and eggers"... the fact that with 12 arrows they MIGHT have a shot at beating Butch or Simon. At least, in their minds anyhow :)

[DrRalph]

While I have noted that matchplay is a fine thing for a TV event, it is ugly for archers.


Sorry Jim, I'm not arguing for the archers directly - they chose to pursue the sport, and knew the format well ahead of time, I'm more concerned with preserving the status and credibility of the goal they are aiming for. The Olympic and World Championships should have genuine predictable achievement value, and *never* be regarded as a lottery as long as you can make the cut. We're not at that point yet, maybe, but it could be closer than people think, and we have to be prepared to adapt when/if it happens.

This only indirectly helps the archers. The audience will stick around to watch if they think the outcome is worthwhile. If not then I suggest there really is a problem :) But even if the very dissapointed arches leave, the audience will probably not, and the event continues for everyone else.

[James Park]

DrRalph,
Agreed, the archers know the format and make their choice. The format is one of the reasons I elected not to attend the World Target last year (I qualified and finished high enough in the Nationals to have been able to claim a place had I wanted it) - my personal choice, and I was happy that others wanted to attend, even though they finished lower in the selection event. Note that my comments here are not related to my ability in matchplay - I have won such things. they are simply that for a World Championship I don't like the format as it is "archer-unfriendly". As I noted, I am happy enough with it for the Olympics, as I know the objective is quite different.
My philosophy with these things is that I am involved with archery because I want to shoot arrows, not because I want to create a "spectator-spectacular". While I fully understand that much of our funding depends upon TV liking archery at the Olympics and am happy to tailor that event to meet that need, I certainly don't want the format of my archery to be stuffed up to meet the needs of non-existent spectators.
Also, for the usual tournaments we all compete in (not the Olympics), the financial success and enjoyment depends very strongly on having a reasonable number of competitors come along and participate and to feel they have achieved something. If we structure the general events such that only the experts get to shoot right through we are possibly taking away much of the pleasure that the average archer deserves, so it is not a path that I would take. Ask some of those who have gone to a World Championship, missed the cut, and then had to sit around for many days while an ever-reducing subset played at matchplay, if they really enjoyed the event - my experience is that they did not.

[gt]

Ask some of those who have gone to a World Championship, missed the cut, and then had to sit around for many days while an ever-reducing subset played at matchplay, if they really enjoyed the event - my experience is that they did not.


Dead wrong Jim, and I have photos to prove it !!

:o

[Marcus]

Actually Erika had a blast at NY even after she was knocked out. Although watching Clint, Tim and Dave in the finals certainly helped keep her interest.

[Vittorio]

I have done some extensive analysis of matchplay (both 12 arrow and 18 arrow matches - the amount of calculations is truly monstrous).
If you take a particular archer, for example one who averages 1335 for a FITA, his average end at 70M will be around 55 and for a 12 arrow match about 110. However, while that will be his average, he will not score exactly that for every end - there will be a spread of end scores.
Similarly, if we take an archer who averages 1300 for a FITA, his average end at 70M will be around 54 and for a 12 arrow match about 108. Again, he will not get that every end but will have a spread of scores. Hence, while we would expect the 1325 archer to beat the 1300 archer, that may not be the case because the better archer may have a poor end and the lesser archer a good end. As the number of arrows in the match reduces, the likelihood of the lesser archer winning increases.
If you work out the statistics for such a match we get the following set of likely scores. In this case, the better archer is likely to win 70% of the time and the lesser archer 30% of the time. That is, there is a considerable probability that the lesser archer will win.
http://www.archery-forum.com/uploads/mp1.JPG
If instead we take a 1350 archer vs our 1300 archer, the probabilities change. In this case, our better archer should win 87% of the time and the lesser archer 13% of the time. Again, there is a reasonable possibility of the lesser archer winning, even though the better archer can be expected to average about 113 for a 12 arrow match.
http://www.archery-forum.com/uploads/mp2.JPG
That is: a short matchplay event is a very risky affair for the better archers. Even where the better archer is considerably better than his apponent there is still a reasonable probability that he will lose. The probability is that even though the lesser archer might have a lucky match and knock out a potential champion, it is not likely that the lesser archer will get through more than a round - the statistics are against him. However, a poor archer can quite easily have a brief moment of fame (and destroy the prospects of our worthy champion in the process).
I have analysed the results of several World Archery Championships, looking at the correlation between ranking position and final position and the correlation is not strong, demonstrating that we do indeed get these turn-overs. I have also analysed the scores to see if we get "70M experts" who score more than they should at 70M in relation to their FITA scores - we do not get them.

Thanks for the best mahematical explanation I have seen up to now about why OR format as it is, is purely a game of probability.

Despite from the fact that the archers I personally train are now all very good in this stupid game, I have to underline again that the damage given to the archery movement by the introduction of the OR in terms of number of possible archers lost is incredibly huge (being basically archery a sport for individualsts, not for competitivepersons), and surely countries with a large number of top lvel archers have now a totally unfair advantage to those having a limited number. To train an archer in competition at 113 matchpaly level, you have to be born in Korea, or spend huge money travelling continuously to major archery events.
And, as far as Athens is concerned, the special condition arranged there, with no way to have reasonable sight marks before entering the stadium, will sort out in a kind of "sight mark lottery", worse and worser while the competition will go on, that has nothing to do with our sport.

My solution to find out the best archer 8with reasonable approximation?
Triple Fita in 2 or 3 days and matchplay at 18 arrows betwen the top 4 in round robin format.
:o 8) 8) 8)

[gt]

Vittorio,

I had no idea you were such a talented comedian !!

:D

[grantwomack]

My solution to find out the best archer 8with reasonable approximation?
Triple Fita in 2 or 3 days and matchplay at 18 arrows betwen the top 4 in round robin format.
:o 8) 8) 8)
Would be an interesting process to do it that way. But then you'd miss out on all of the fun of the final match, which is what people watching want to see. They don't pay big money at Wimbledon to see a round robin format, they want the two people who have done the best up until that point in a head-to-head battle.
The best archer shouldn't always win!

[Marcus]

To train an archer in competition at 113 matchpaly level, you have to be born in Korea
Then why don't the Koreans win at matchplay? The rest of the world should be glad we have matchplay, gives us a chance. ;)

I think archery's biggest failure is that we do not train our archers for competition, those who become competitive often do so off their own back.

[gt]

Then why don't the Koreans win at matchplay?

Marcus ! How dare you spoil Vittorio's good story with reality !!

Rule number one of the errornet- never let the facts get in the way of a good story (or rant). :D

Like this for example:

I have to underline again that the damage given to the archery movement by the introduction of the OR in terms of number of possible archers lost is incredibly huge

Which is why, say, France added 40K recurve competitors to the FFTA, there are more FITA member nations than ever, and World Championship participation is outstripping event capacities ?


Take a deep breath Vittorio :)

[DrRalph]

1) Why has no man defended the Olympic individual matchplay (Korean or otherwise)?

For example I suspect the women's results are more consistent because the matches can more accurately separate the range of archer levels in that comp. One possibilty is that the men are too close and bordering on too good *for the 70m 122cm 12 arrow test* and we just need to tune the test a bit: More arrows, longer distances, smaller targets or a different matchplay ladder.

2) Why has the teams event been so much more consistent?

One possibility is that you here you simply have more arrows to average over and the overall better teams have a smaller chance of being upset. Increasing the arrows shot - ie the teams event - and the test is more reliable? Maybe, maybe not, but it is possible.

Mixing it up just to give others a chance through decreasing the discrimination of your test, ie too few arrows, is a detriment to the sport in the long term.

Don't forget it is entirely possible to have a matchplay system, which is fun, that has any accuracy/random element you want, but you should choose that rationally.

I'm not against matchplay - it is great. The best part is that you can visibly see the losers leave the field and watch the winners dwindle before your eyes! Exciting stuff, focussing everyone's attention on the two final archers together in one place, not spread out over a vast field.

I just think we should have a round that matches the ability of the archers and addresses the problem of how to fairly separate the best archers in the world. It isn't up to me to say what that round is, I'm just pointing it out, and what factors are important.

If you separate from the archer's for a moment, this is simply a game design and measurement problem, not a fundamental problem with the idea of matchplay.

[Marcus]

Why has no man defended the Olympic individual matchplay (Korean or otherwise)?

hhmmmm lets see
The Matchplay structure has only been in since 1992 I believe, so three Olympics.
Sebastan Flute won the first
Justin Huish won te second
Simon Fairweather the third

Flute simply isn't the shooter he once was, Huish failed to defend his Olympic trial due to being in prison (un-matchplay related crimes) and Simon has a good shot at doing so this year.

Marcus ! How dare you spoil Vittorio's good story with reality !!

Rule number one of the errornet- never let the facts get in the way of a good story (or rant).
:oops: Sorry, to make up for it I shall head to AT and start another Bowtech rumour. :D

[Vittorio]

I ate talking about myelf, but maybe sometime is necessary to do it, just for introduction to new friends.
In my family I presently have a total of 10 World champion gold medals, 9 Fita and one IFAA. The FITA medals are 5 individual and 4 by team, all won in the match play OR/Field finals. And countless number of Gold medals at various European, International or Italian top level competitions won in the same way.
I'm also involved in the Italian federation mangement since 1977, I'm president of one of the largest clubs in Italy, counting around 100 members were 5 are presenly members of the Italian national teams (all rcurve ). Italy FITARCO has present >18000 registerd members, in a phase of growing again after some years of decrease.
I have also been member of FITA target archery committee from 1997 to 2003, developing and testing a variation of the Olympic round that was allowing a repechage system for top loosing scores up to the quarter of finals. System tested succesfully in international competitions in 1998, proposed to 1999 Fita congress and never discussed there as there was... not enough time....
Developper of the 50 mt match club round (see Fita book 5) to help people to train locally in matchplay.
And, many other things too... Among them, fom my personal business, well reputed consultant in Marketing for advanced products and services.

So I suppose, at least by myself only, to have quite well understood how things are working in the present OR format. That remain stupid from all points of view, is recognized as very stupid by italian media that are following archery from years, has ben judged very stupid by journalists in Sydney (they asked there : why do you decrease the number of arrows in the finals, while in all ther sports finals becomes longer or more difficult? Nobody could give them any reasonable answer) and has damaged the spreading of our sports in terms of real participants.
France for instance has grown very rapidly from 30K to 54K archers becouse of a French men winning the olympics (nobody knew at that time in what kind of format), but after their switch to 70mt + OR format for 100% of their competitions, the growth has been stopped and now they ar just bact to the 50k level and decreasing.
In Italy we have grown from 400 to 12K in few years when we have got the bronze medal (with double fita round) in Montreal 76 and Moscow 80, then increased again in late 80's ( I call it the "Rambo II" effect, and you may guess why), and then decreased even after 96 medal, mainly because of the wide itroduction of the 70mt round in Italy (our analisys, that nobody can discuss).
Now we have limited the 70 mt +OR effect, and things are better, with number of archers increasing steadily again. Again, a direct experience nobody can discuss.
Irecognize only one thing, that we MUST stay in the Olympic games.
But we can stay there not only imposing the lenght of the socks or the best shade of color for the (forbidden) T-shirts, but also trying to change the Olympic round to something more similar to a real sport event rather than an evident pure lottery. There are many ways of doing so, but surely it is an impossible challenge in the present FITA organization. But, fortunately for all of us, from next year things will be quite different....

[grantwomack]

But, fortunately for all of us, from next year things will be quite different....
You have me intrigued... Please elaborate. :D

[frommy]

Vittorio,

Many of us on this forum would be familiar with your identity, and I hope would join with me welcoming you to this archery forum. Gee, it is called Archery Forum. :)

I will not comment with any depth on the current debate in this thread, but merely observe that it is a fascinating discussion.

From my perspective, at the mid level of the compound ranks, I want to shoot more arrows and better my score from the previous occassion. However, I can see that the OR format has a place in our game, but I will leave that to others to shoot.

Brian

[frommy]

But, fortunately for all of us, from next year things will be quite different....
You have me intrigued... Please elaborate. :D

Yes. I am also intrigued by that remark. Please expand. :-?

[Robert de Bondt]

But, fortunately for all of us, from next year things will be quite different....
You have me intrigued... Please elaborate. :D

Is Jim Easton retiring? :wink:

[2Dogs]

Did or Does France really have that many Registered FITA Archers?.......same goes for Italy?

Huge!, when you comare it to Australia.....what do we have 2000 AA Members if we are lucky.

Come to think about it, Korea must have a huge amount of FITA shooters. Does anybody ever see any of the results from any of their shoots?. That would make interesting reading.

[frommy]

Did or Does France really have that many Registered FITA Archers?.......same goes for Italy?

Huge!, when you comare it to Australia.....what do we have 2000 AA Members if we are lucky.

I think ASNSW ended up with about 1000 members this year, so I think that the overall number for AA would be much higher.

But, yes. I question the numbers quoted for France and Italy as well. :roll: