Boxing at the Pacific Games 2023

[dodge 1,041]

I don't really see a problem with geographical spread of quotas. So what if Australia gets 12 quotas? Not really an issue at all if the 5th best in Europe or Asia miss out. They still have 2 world events to qualify from 

[Ogreman 379]

So quickly from a prediction perspective I got 12/13 which is a little dissapointing but well sure. It leaves me on 84/139 (60.4%) in total for all the continental events which is half decent I suppose.

In terms of the competition here I suppose the positive is that there were no major judging controversies but there were so few close fights that it would have been an embarrasment if there were any.

Look give Australia credit, Like by Australian standards this is a good squad and the thing is that Adrian Paoletti at 92kg the only Australian not to qualify actually isn't that far away in terms of qualifying at one of the world tournaments although I wouldn't bet on it. (It's going to be a very lonely trip for him though)

From a New Zealand perspective this was an unmitigated disaster. The IOC gave you a few free quotas in a sport you aren't particularly good at and you went nah thanks we're good. Aditionally to manage to lose 3 fights to non-Australian opposition (At least one of which could have been competing for you) is an indictment of their selection process.

 

Finally on the Oceanian quota thing 

23 hours ago, dodge said:

I don't really see a problem with geographical spread of quotas. So what if Australia gets 12 quotas? Not really an issue at all if the 5th best in Europe or Asia miss out. They still have 2 world events to qualify from 

It's not a geographical spread thing though Australian had 5 quotas last time Oceania had 9 boxers there was no issue with Oceania being represented at the Olympics when they competed along with Asian qualifying. Like why exactly is there a need to separate Asia and Oceania but lump North and South America together. I'm not arguing for two separate Americas qualifiers just why is that different.

Secondly yes it is an issue that Australia get 12 quotas. Australia are a roughly top 15/20 country in the world in boxing and yet they are going to have the most qualifiers for the Olympics. Also its not the 5th best in Asia and Europe, It was only top 2 in the majority of events, the draws were unseeded and add in some bad judging and it is far from a picture of the 5th best boxer in Europe/Asia missing out at this point, in a lot of cases it was much closer to 2,3,4 and 5 all missing out rather than just the 5th best.

A lot of boxers are going to miss out on qualifying despite being better than their Oceanian (Australian) equivalent and Oceania would have ended up with 6/7 or so quotas plus a universality/tri-partite quota or two anyway.

 

[dodge 1,041]

Every boxer gets at least 3 chances to qualify (if fit of course). None of them can complain if they don’t make it 

 

If you lose in 3 separate qualifying competitions, you can’t blame bad draws IMO

 

So yeah, it doesn’t bother me at all that Australia gets quotas in this sport (or any sport).  

[Ogreman 379]

1 hour ago, dodge said:

If you lose in 3 separate qualifying competitions, you can’t blame bad draws IMO

I wish that were true with this boxing qualification system but like it isnt.

For example if you are the tenth best boxer in a given weighclass you could very easily lose to lets say the 2nd, 5th and 7th best boxers and fall short of qualifying despite being comfortably good enough to qualify. It is important to note that all these draws are unseeded and I'm assuming the world qualifying ones will be too. With unseeded draws you don't control when you box the best boxer in the draw or how many of the top 3 or 4 boxers are in your path to a qualifying position.

 

I've tried to explain (admittedly quite badly) the unseeded draw thing before but like again to keep it simple if the 2 finalists qualify. Then the boxer who loses the final and the boxer who lost to the eventual winner in the semis had basically the same result (I know this isn't quite true but for simplicity lets say it is). So we don't know who was better the losing finalist or the losing semi finalist because they lost to the same boxer, so in theory we can approximate that half of the time the boxing who lost to the winner in the semi final would have actually beaten the boxer who lost in the final and therefore with 2 qualifiers per weight roughly 25% of the qualifiers are 'incorrect' as in the worse boxer qualified just comparing the losing finallist to the losing semifinallist. This can be extrapolated backwards as well like the boxer who lost to the eventual champion in the quarter final or last 16 might actually be the second best boxer in the draw but because the draw was unseeded they have no control over whether they meet the best boxer so we don't know. The majority of the weightclasses on the mens side in Asia ended up like this where the likes of Chu En Lai and Chia Wei Kan qualified despite being nowhere near the level of Ruslan Abdullaev/ Bakhodur Usmonov and Asadhkuja Muydhinkujaev/Aslanbek Shymbergenov/ Nishant Dev.

This setup is also true for draws where the best four boxers qualify but the 'incorrect' percentage is much trickier to calculate. This error is why taekwondo has its convaluted way of awarding bronze medals and taekwondo starts from a point where it has a fairly accurate seeding and seeds every athlete in the draw. Seeding only somewhat corrects this error but obviously is limited by the accuracy of the seeding.

 

To explain it slightly differently the actual number for how often the second best boxer in a 2 to qualify draw qualifies is only slightly above 50% just based off the draw. Not even taking into account judging errors (To explain exactly what I mean by second best boxer is somewhat difficult but it is a theoretical second best boxer rather than "I think this guy was the second best boxer", just in theory there is one we don't need to actually know who it is) (This probably just confuses things further but sure). But anyway in an unseeded draw slightly under half of the time the best boxer and the second best boxer will get drawn on the same side of the draw. (I could explain why it is slightly under half and not half but it doesn't matter that much).To give you an example Jack Marley is one of the best heavyweights in the world and thoroughly deserves his spot at the Olympics but there was a slightly under 50% that he would have been drawn on the same side of the bracket as Aziz Abbes Mouhidiine and he wouldn't have qualified as a result. Same end result, same level of performance but whether or not he qualifed just came down to the draw. Again this means that in a two to qualify roughly 50% of the time one of the boxers is 'incorrect' and therefore 25% of the qualifiers are 'incorrect'.

 

 

Obviously this is a somewhat idealised and theoretical setup and it is an incomplete argument but I hope can convince you that the error produced by these draws is significant and significant to the point that just having 3 qualifying oppurtunities isn't going to correct for it. If not just trust me on this, I have thought a lot about these things.

 

(I've managed to confuse myself a bit here because this is roughly the same process but yet the first way I've explained would produce an error of 25% plus the error that the losing quarter finallists... was actually the one who 'should' have qualified, so an error of greater than 25% and yet the second more simplistic way gives you an error of slightly under 25%.)

(I've decided the first way probably needs some refining and the maths is more complex than I have laid it out but let me think about it)

(The conclusion is right though, roughly 25% of the qualifiers in a 2 to qualify unseeded draw system are 'incorrect', and that number would be higher for a 4 to qualify system.)

Edited December 4, 2023 by Ogreman

[dodge 1,041]

I’m ok with ANY boxer missing the Olympics. I think having 3 chances is enough. So sorry, I won’t be convinced but if you lose 3 separate qualification bouts, with a diminishing level of competition in each, then I’d argue strongly that you’ve had enough chances

 

There are other sports where you might have the 3rd best team miss out. I’m OK with that too

 

Some countries have 2/3 fighters that would easily qualify if there were no limits on nations. This is just an extension of that. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by dodge

[Josh 13,529]

I’m not, it’s the Olympic Games, I want to see the strongest athletes/teams competing, rather than the ones that get there on a continental merit. 
 

Would rather Oceania merge with Asia for those weaker sports. 
 

Thank god Oceania doesn’t have a registered volleyball federation otherwise we’ll be seeing teams that’ll get demolished by everyone (including the African teams probably)

Edited December 4, 2023 by Josh

[dodge 1,041]

It has never been about the “strongest athletes/teams” competing.

 

If it was the marathon would be 40 Ethiopians deep. The track 100m would have 15 Jamaicans and 15 from the USA. The swimming 100m freestyle would have 8-10 Australians

 

There would be no African representation in more than half the sports. 

 

It’s fine if you think that’s a better Olympics, but it sounds awful to me. A global spread is far more enjoyable to watch for me. For some just reaching the Olympics is a goal. That’s good enough 

[Ogreman 379]

Is there not a scale here though, I don't think anyone is advocating for an Olympics where only the best athletes compete regardless of the country/ continenent they represent. But at the same time the Olympics should primarily have the best athletes.

 

Again to reiterate there has been no issue at recent Olympics with Oceania being represented in boxing. If that automatic continental quota had been reallocated to Asia/ (in the womens weights where 4 qualified in Asia to one of the world qualifying tournaments ) you still would have your global spread and a number of boxers representing Oceania but the overall standard of the tournament would also be higher. 

 

I'm not going to convince you on the three chances thing am I? I just don't like how much a role random chance plays in deciding these quotas. Obviously, there will always be an element of random chance in any qualification system and sport without any chance involved is very boring but like for me at least that number is way too high in boxing. 

[Josh 13,529]

44 minutes ago, dodge said:

It has never been about the “strongest athletes/teams” competing.

 

If it was the marathon would be 40 Ethiopians deep. The track 100m would have 15 Jamaicans and 15 from the USA. The swimming 100m freestyle would have 8-10 Australians

 

There would be no African representation in more than half the sports. 

 

It’s fine if you think that’s a better Olympics, but it sounds awful to me. A global spread is far more enjoyable to watch for me. For some just reaching the Olympics is a goal. That’s good enough 

Perhaps I should make myself more clear. Australia essentially has most of their continental quotas being handed to them due to Oceania being the weakest continent (in terms of most sports) with only New Zealand capable of challenging them (there’s some exceptions, but for the most part that’s the case)

 

I’m okay with Africa’s continental quotas, because at least the events are competitive enough to have multiple countries in contention for them. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Josh

[dodge 1,041]

No, you were pretty clear the first time.  I just think you can't say "I want the best there" when you that's not what you want. I think everyone agrees there should be limits on NOCs in all sports and regions in most sports

 

You don't want Australia to get easy quotas. My argument is that is a nothing issue really. That's all.  I like that there are continental qualifiers and I don't care if Australia wins them all in boxing.