Atlantian Crown

[Alcyoneus]

I have some questions about the way Atlantia runs the trees.

A. Are the trees seeded in any way, or is it random draw?

(Calontir's are random draw, so it is possible for one side of the tree, or the other to be a heavier list than the other. It is possible for Dukes to face each other in the first round.)

In our list, the challengers in the semi-finals would have been switched to prevent them from fighting someone they had already fought, unless that was impossible (like in the finals). I noticed that each of the semi-finalists from the loser's trees had been put their by the victor they fought in the semi-finals. So, the pairings are not adjusted for that in Atlanta?

B. For this number of combatants (19?) we would have used a 32 man tree, and the bys would have been fought (usually by the Crown's champions, or other people chosen by them). They would not be 'destructive', since by definition, a round in which you have a by is a round in which you do not have an opponent, or a round that does not count. After the first round of the winners tree, and the first round of the losers, the tree would be clean, and there would be no more bys, unless someone dropped out of the tourney.

You've used a 16 man tree with 'challenge ins ' (question about that follows), is this in order to eliminate the extra fights?

C. About the challenge ins. You stated that the low man/men on the OP challenge in, how far up the OP do they challenge? Does a person w/o an AoA challenging in fight a person with an AoA, the highest ranking person, or somewhere in between?

"And that's all I got to say about that..." Forrest Gump

[dukelogan]

sometimes they are random draw. i have always preferred to run lists that way. usually they are set up in order of precedence with the highest ranking guy facing the top of the bottom half. meaning, number 1 fights number 5, number 2 fights number 6, number 3 fights number 7, etc.

challenge ins work with the lowest ranked fighters having to challenge into that round. so, in the case of this last one, the lowest ranked three picked whomever they wished to challenge for their slot in that round.

we dont do bye fights. i think we learned a long time ago not to risk injury or exhaustion in a fight that didnt count.

regards
logan

I have some questions about the way Atlantia runs the trees.

A. Are the trees seeded in any way, or is it random draw?

(Calontir's are random draw, so it is possible for one side of the tree, or the other to be a heavier list than the other. It is possible for Dukes to face each other in the first round.)

In our list, the challengers in the semi-finals would have been switched to prevent them from fighting someone they had already fought, unless that was impossible (like in the finals). I noticed that each of the semi-finalists from the loser's trees had been put their by the victor they fought in the semi-finals. So, the pairings are not adjusted for that in Atlanta?

B. For this number of combatants (19?) we would have used a 32 man tree, and the bys would have been fought (usually by the Crown's champions, or other people chosen by them). They would not be 'destructive', since by definition, a round in which you have a by is a round in which you do not have an opponent, or a round that does not count. After the first round of the winners tree, and the first round of the losers, the tree would be clean, and there would be no more bys, unless someone dropped out of the tourney.

You've used a 16 man tree with 'challenge ins ' (question about that follows), is this in order to eliminate the extra fights?

C. About the challenge ins. You stated that the low man/men on the OP challenge in, how far up the OP do they challenge? Does a person w/o an AoA challenging in fight a person with an AoA, the highest ranking person, or somewhere in between?

"And that's all I got to say about that..." Forrest Gump

[Sinclair Hawkins]

oh ye of little faith......... surely you know better than to think i would hit you that hard. i could if you wanted me to.....

Wrong Squire... He lives more south than I do...

I am certain you will bestoy upon me the appropriate blow at the appropriate time, nothing more or less. I am certain we will talk about the buffet and other details this weekend in great depth at or after the demo.

I am indeed looking forward to it.

[BdeB]

I have some questions about the way Atlantia runs the trees.

A. Are the trees seeded in any way, or is it random draw?

The way this crown, and some of the others recently have been done is Seeded by Precedence. (there is no set standard, some are random draw, some are the old Challenge In style where the Unbelts challenge the knights (my favorite) etc.)

The way this one was done was that the list was arranged by precedence to form a perfect 16 man tree. The lowest three in precedence got to challenge into any fight they wanted (precedence didn't matter to answer your other question). There were no 'Bys' this way. The loser of those challenge in fights got to challenge in in the second round. Yes, this is done to eliminate the three most 'victory challenged'. The top sixteen were orignally seeded so that #1 fought #16, #2 fought #15, etc.

Any other questions?

[Sinclair Hawkins]

Just so everyone understands... The seeds were decided by their position in the Order of Precedence, NOT Dark Apprentices ranking system. (No offense DA...)

The way this crown, and some of the others recently have been done is Seeded by Precedence. (there is no set standard, some are random draw, some are the old Challenge In style where the Unbelts challenge the knights (my favorite) etc.)

The way this one was done was that the list was arranged by precedence to form a perfect 16 man tree. The lowest three in precedence got to challenge into any fight they wanted (precedence didn't matter to answer your other question). There were no 'Bys' this way. The loser of those challenge in fights got to challenge in in the second round. Yes, this is done to eliminate the three most 'victory challenged'. The top sixteen were orignally seeded so that #1 fought #16, #2 fought #15, etc.

Any other questions?

[Asbjorn Johansen]

The top sixteen were orignally seeded so that #1 fought #16, #2 fought #15, etc.

Any other questions?

Very different from the approach in the few descriptions of how challenges were handled in a foot combats in the 14th and 15th century in western Europe. From the limited actual accounts we have, Vannes being probably the best example, it seems like when testing one another’s prowess in the list, ideally combatants of nearly equal prowess were matched in the list. In a distinct contrast with SCA the when a victor for the day was selected in most of the accounts I have read it was most often selected by judges or by mutual acclaim of the combatants (some times all the combatants would select one victor, at others those who held the field would select the best from those who challenged for it and visa versa).

I’d prefer to see us forgo the very modern flavor of the double elimination list. A single elimination list might be a better choice if we want a more self selected choice. There is at least some evidence of single elimination type lists being used in later period jousts.

[BdeB]

Hate to burst your bubble, but Precedence does not equal Prowess.

Likewise comparing what we do in the SCA with what the nobles of the middles ages did is apples and oranges. I love more medival tournaments styles and champion them here in this Kingdom.

But I am also satisfied with how we conduct our crown lists. Namely, double elimination. It's like the quote about democracy as a form of government.....

[Heairn]

Technically, the rest of the list has a "Bye" while the challenge fights are fought. So.. round one is challenge in, round 2 is the first fight of the group of 16. Round 3 is the challenge of the loosers from the first challenge, round 4 is the second fight of the group of 16, if you want to look at it that way. After watching the tourney and seeing how it works out, I have to admit that I prefer this method. Using "byes" puts the list in the hands of the MOL and, as His Grace Logan mentions, one rarely fights hard in a bout that means nothing. Here, the bye is totally in the hands of the fighters, you challenge to the spot you want, and then you earn the right to stay there.

While I understand the theory of a "clear consensus" of fighters, for Crown one needs a clear winner. Double elimination is a nice way to get there. Single elim is more brutal. I happen to have liked the "War Crown" as a change of pace as well... but whatever method one chooses, it should be one that leaves a single victor standing clearly at the end.

Malcolm

[Alcyoneus]

Using "byes" puts the list in the hands of the MOL and, as His Grace Logan mentions, one rarely fights hard in a bout that means nothing. Here, the bye is totally in the hands of the fighters,

Malcolm

But here, the byes do not fight at all, and the challenge ins can only determine that one person will not have a bye.

Me? I'd be trying to set my pace/tone for the day and win. I wouldn't want to go out and lose the fight. Starting 'cold' is not the way to do well, in general.

It doesn't always work, as I've fought in a number of crowns, and haven't won one yet. But the other guys are setting their tone too.

[Asbjorn Johansen]

Hate to burst your bubble, but Precedence does not equal Prowess.

Likewise comparing what we do in the SCA with what the nobles of the middles ages did is apples and oranges. I love more medival tournaments styles and champion them here in this Kingdom.

But I am also satisfied with how we conduct our crown lists. Namely, double elimination. It's like the quote about democracy as a form of government.....

Precedence probably has a moderate correlation with prowess, but that’s neither here nor there.

I probably should have broken the last post up into two separate comments my first comment was about “seeding’ a combat, my second was more about the structure of a series of combats.

On seeding combats:

What trying to put forward is that we do have an example of how fights were seeded in a formal non judicial combat –seeking parity between combatants. It seems like the way we do it in the SCA is quite different from that example.

I’d argue that reverse order of precedence may even be worse. Consider all the discussion in de Charney about who should fight in what list. There does seem to be a moderate bias toward combat’s between individual of equal ranks

On structure:

Medieval formal combats did result in one clear winner in many cases, its just their methodology was quite different from how the SCA selects a single clear winner in its formal combats. I’m not arguing that we switch to their methodology, but that perhaps, the double elimination tree structure should be seen as perhaps as much a piece of modern sports paraphernalia as an exposed lacrosse elbow or blue plastic. I waiver on its uses often, but there is at least some evidence of single elimination type lists in armoured combat, although they were formal combats on horse back not on foot.

Double elimination also plays straight into the schizophrenia of formal SCA combat. We label many formal occasions of combat “tournamentsâ€Â

[blackbow]

The top sixteen were orignally seeded so that #1 fought #16, #2 fought #15, etc.

Any other questions?

Very different from the approach in the few descriptions of how challenges were handled in a foot combats in the 14th and 15th century in western Europe. From the limited actual accounts we have, Vannes being probably the best example, it seems like when testing one another’s prowess in the list, ideally combatants of nearly equal prowess were matched in the list. In a distinct contrast with SCA the when a victor for the day was selected in most of the accounts I have read it was most often selected by judges or by mutual acclaim of the combatants (some times all the combatants would select one victor, at others those who held the field would select the best from those who challenged for it and visa versa).

I’d prefer to see us forgo the very modern flavor of the double elimination list. A single elimination list might be a better choice if we want a more self selected choice. There is at least some evidence of single elimination type lists being used in later period jousts.

asbjorn: I, for one, wouldn't really be interested in driving several hours for the privilege of putting on armor and possibly fighting one time.

regards,

jonathan blackbow

[Asbjorn Johansen]

Is that really significantly different from possibly fighting twice? (Not to mention that the bulk of the fighting I see at many tournaments is the practice afterwards, not in the fights during it.

If you want the potential for having a longer combat (one that's likely to provide more total fighting time then if you came and doubled out in a normal SCA bout) I can show you rules that create outcomes that are closer to what I have read in period accounts of formal, non judicial, foot combats. In most accounts I have read there is significantly more action on average then in many SCA bouts and on average it seems to last a longer time.

[Alcyoneus]

Is that really significantly different from possibly fighting twice?

Yes, it is, to me. It is possible to lose once to a fluke or an extremely lucky opponent, and still come back and win the tournament. I'll drive 450 miles to St Louis to fight in a tournament that is double elimination, but I don't think that I would do it for a single elimination tournament. Like bye fights, there isn't the same level of competition for pick-ups as there is in the tournament. I don't often go 2 and out, but it can happen.

I am glad that our crowns makes sure the lists reduce the possibility of having a person lose crown who has lost to only one other fighter (Unless the loser has defeated all other opponents except the winner).

One of the reasons that Namron Protectorate is so popular is that it has almost always been a Swiss five tournament, so everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 5 fights.

[Alcyoneus]

Is that really significantly different from possibly fighting twice?

Yes, it is, to me. It is possible to lose once to a fluke or an extremely lucky opponent, and still come back and win the tournament. I'll drive 450 miles to St Louis to fight in a tournament that is double elimination, but I don't think that I would do it for a single elimination tournament. Like bye fights, there isn't the same level of competition for pick-ups as there is in the tournament. I don't often go 2 and out, but it can happen.

I am glad that our crowns makes sure the lists reduce the possibility of having a person lose crown who has lost to only one other fighter (Unless the loser has defeated all other opponents except the winner).

One of the reasons that Namron Protectorate is so popular is that it has almost always been a Swiss five tournament, so everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 5 fights.

[blackbow]

Is that really significantly different from possibly fighting twice?

Yes, it is, to me. It is possible to lose once to a fluke or an extremely lucky opponent, and still come back and win the tournament. I'll drive 450 miles to St Louis to fight in a tournament that is double elimination, but I don't think that I would do it for a single elimination tournament. Like bye fights, there isn't the same level of competition for pick-ups as there is in the tournament. I don't often go 2 and out, but it can happen.

I am glad that our crowns makes sure the lists reduce the possibility of having a person lose crown who has lost to only one other fighter (Unless the loser has defeated all other opponents except the winner).

One of the reasons that Namron Protectorate is so popular is that it has almost always been a Swiss five tournament, so everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 5 fights.

Alcyoneus: what's the format for a swiss five? and what's the namron protectorate?

regards,
jonathan blackbow

[x]

what's the format for a swiss five?

It's a modified Round Robin sort of thing...with a potential twist.

Split the field up into groups of 6 (randomly, by OP, whatever).

Within those groups, each person fights each other person once (thereby getting 5 fights).

This is where the twist *can* come in (and generally does when this format is used in Rapier combat). You cannot repeat weapons forms within the group. This works well in Rapier where there is single sword, sword and dagger, sword and soft parry device, sword and ridgid parry device and case of swords. In Heavy it could work with Sword/Board, Polearm, longsword, Two weapon, spear (short spear perhaps?). Or eliminate the spear and let each person duplicate one weapons form..whichever.

A downside of this is it makes "Matching weapons forms" undoable near the end of a rotation, since fighters will have different styles available in the 4th and 5th fights. Of course, that also means you have the tactical "What weapon to use against who?" decisions...so it balances nicely.

This *should* result in a clear winner from each bracket (in the case of a tie, either go with the winner or have a single playoff bout).

In a perfect world, you had 6 brackets (36 fighters) so each of the finalists goes into the "finals" bracket and lather, rinse, repeat.

If you've got fewer than that, allow some number of 2nd placers into the finals. If you've got fewer, break into semi and then finals.

The format guarantees each fighter 5 fights, keeps things moving, provides some interesting tactical decisions ("Hmm...I'm best with sword and dagger...should I use that against X who is a God with his cloak, or against Y who is also best at Sword and Dagger?)

If you've got time and space you can do "Consolation" rounds where you let everyone play in a "2nd round" group based on their performance in the first round (ie all winners go into the main group for the championship, all 2nd placers into the B final, 3rd place into C, etc, etc).

It's a fun format, although some "purists" scoff at any format where they can't always carry their pet form...(shrug) different folks have different priorities.

[blackbow]

sounds cool! thanks.

JB

[Jean Paul de Sens]

In Ansteorra, we do swiss 5 tournaments a bit different. The de-facto methodology is this:

• 5 rounds.
• Everyone fights in every round.

Typical modifiers:

• Every round is a different weapon style. or
• 5 weapons styles allowed, and fighter can pick each style each round, so long as the don't pick any of the allowed styles twice
• Sometimes the list mistresses will pair winners vs winners throughout the list to pair down the number of unbeatens at the end of the five rounds.