Fly_like_a_don

Quotas in M+80kg :  

M -80kg Quotas

W -49kg Qualified

W 57kg   
 
(, )

Thomas Bach and team having a great day so far

having it's first qualifier in the sport the form of Edi, since Jesper Roeson in 2004. A return to the sport after 20 years.

having it's first qualifier in the sport the form of Edi, since Jesper Roeson in 2004. A return to the sport after 20 years.

M -80kg Quotas

Quotas in M+80kg :  

W -49kg Qualified

Bad luck for 

Thomas Bach and team having a great day so far

M -80kg Quotas

W -49kg Qualified

M -80kg Quotas

W -49kg Qualified

W -49kg Qualified

W -49kg Qualified

Kosovo

I mostly agree that the current scoring system doesn't work effectively. For me I would just change the default score for a round to 10-8 and then only close rounds be scored 10-9 and one sided rounds 10-7 rather than the current system where unless you batter the shit out of someone for three minutes straight, the score will be 10-9. This would obviously deviate from pro boxing and make the sytem more complex and being simple to understand is the primary logic behind the current scoring system but I think it would make fights more interesting and should make judging decisions more accurate
 
Yes, the judges here are just bad, but there were only probably a couple of decisions they actually got wrong today though (Csemez  3-2 Gonzalez  and Ovezov  3-2 Shahbakhsh  are the two that spring to mind but I would need to watch them again to be sure). Obviously I only saw half of a lot of fights and missed some entirely but this was the sense I got. I think the IOC is kind of using the qualifying tournaments to figure out who the bad judges are so hopefully by the Olympics the judging will be closer to competent but obviously using the qualifying tournaments to do this is far from ideal.
 
 
Anyway this is what I actually wanted to address because the comentators made this mistake too. This statement is sort of true but also not really true at all. In actuality one warning (point deduction) can almost never change the result of a fight. Two and ye you have to win all three rounds for at least 3 judges to win the fight which is obviously pretty devastating but one deduction doesn't really do anything because of how ties are scored. 
 
So disregarding 10-8s typically the possible scores are 30-27, 29-28, 28-29 and 27-30. If a judge gives all three rounds to the same boxer points deductions can never effect anything (3rd points deduction is a disqualification) so the score changes to 30-26 or 27-29 (30-25 and 27-28 with 2 warnings) not effecting the result at all. If a boxer loses 28-29 and has a points deduction then it just changes to 27-29 and again no impact on the outcome of the fight. The confusing one is when a boxer wins two rounds and has a points deduction in which the score does indeed change to 28-28 but whats crucial here is the rules regarding tied scorecards.
 
I don't think this is widely understood very well but the rule regarding tied scores is if the judges who have it tied can effect the outcome, then they go back to those judges and they pick a winner. Basically if the tied scores matter the relevant judges pick a winner and as such you can never end a fight with the score being 2-0, 2-1 or 1-0. 
 
I'll use an actual example to explain this. So lets look at one of today's 57kg fights Carlo Paalam  vs Andrey Bonilla . This fight ended 3-1 to Paalam after Bonilla got a point deduction for what was basically a body slam. (Paalam seemed to hurt his shoulder so hopefully he is ok) (Also its a while since I have seen a boxer as dirty as Bonilla. Would not want to have to box him.) So the judges scores ended up being 29-27 (29-28), 29-27 (29-28), 27-29 (27-30), 28-28 (28-29), 29-27 (29-28) (score with no deduction in brackets) where judges 1,2 and 5 had Paalam winning two rounds and losing one. Judge 3 having Bonilla winning all three and judge 4 having Bonilla winning 2 and losing one round. With the points deduction obviously meaning that judge 4's score was tied. All the other judges results were unaffected by the deduction. Because judge 4's score couldn't change the outcome of the fight his scorecard was simply left as a tie. If he was asked he almost certainly would have given Bonilla the fight given that he gave him 2 rounds and Paalam only one but that would still only make the score 3-2 so it is just left as a tie and the fight's score is 3-1.
 
If for example one more judge went in favour of Bonilla the scores in the Paalam Bonilla fight would therfore be 29-27, 29-27, 27-29, 28-28, 28-28. This fight would not end 2-1 in favour of Paalam. The two tied scores, in this hypothethical case judge 4 and 5, could cumalatively change the winner of the fight so they go back to judge 4 and 5 and they both pick a winner. Again, crucially for a fight to be 28-28 the boxer who received a points deduction has to have won two rounds for that judge and therefore that judge logically would almost always pick that boxer to win. In this scenario the score with a points deduction would be 2-3 in favour of Bonilla assuming judge 4 and 5 are logical and if the points deduction never happened the score would also be 2-3 in favour of Bonilla.
 
To emphasize this any fight where with tied scores the fight initially is scored 2-0, 2-1 or 1-0 the tied judges choose a victor and because the only way to have a points deduction and a tied score (not including 10-8 scenarios) is where the boxer who received a deduction won 2 rounds for the tied judge/ judges. Logically one point deduction should never change the outcome of a fight. 
 
Unfortunately for my argument and the reason I had to caveat everything above with almosts is there are occasionally counter examples and one actually happened today. In the Susan Aguas  vs Marjona Savrieva  fight at W50kg, Savrieva picked up a points deduction in the third round and the scores ended up being 30-26, 29-27, 28-28, 28-28 and 28-28 as a result. As explained above Aguas doesn't win the fight 2-0, the three tied judges could and should have changed the final outcome so judge 3,4 and 5 choose their winner. Judge 3 and 5 of course chose Savrieva having both given her 2 rounds. Whats strange though is on this occasion judge 4 despite giving Savrieva the first 2 rounds and Aguas only the third decided that Aguas won the fight which as I say doesn't really make much logical sense. If judge 4 believed Aguas was that dominant in the third round then that round should have been scored 10-8 by said judge. I think I have only ever seen this scenario of illogical tied decisions happen once or twice.
 
Apologies for probably overexplaining this a bit but it is quite counterintuitive and the morale of the story is barring stupidity or a second non standard score ( second points deduction/ 10-8 round) one solitary warning despite seemingly changing the scores a lot should never change the ultimate outcome of a fight.
 
Just finally there is funny quirk of this system where if you win a fight for 3 judges and 2 have it tied (be it a points deduction or a 10-8 round) you would win a split decision 3-0. However if you win a fight for just 1/2 judges and the other 3/4 have it tied. The tied judges are then evaluated again and if they all give you the fight you would then win a unanimous decision 5-0.
Obviously this doesn't effect the result or anything but I just think its funny that potentially winning one less round for 1/2 judges in rare cases can actually turn a split decision win into a unanimous win.
This happened in the Maud Van der Toorn  vs Jennifer Fernadez  fight where after Van der Toorn had a points deduction 1 judge had her winning (having given her all three rounds) and the other 4 judges had it tied but having given her 2 rounds gave her the fight. If she had convinced two more judges to give her all 3 rounds (Not that she deserved 3 rounds, Fernandez deservedly won round 2) she would have the fight 3-0 and it would have been a split decision and not a unanimous one.

Apparently this should have made things interesting.
 
 will be in -58, -80kg in M
In W +67 for sure. Between -49 and -57 it's close. The Canadian GP was used as trials and Saffron in -49 did better but by ranking Stacy is better.
 
I won't be surprised if all small nations participate in -68 and +80 in Men. For women -67 for sure. But still I don't know if there will be 4 athletes in each 

will not compete at The Oceania Qualifiers as NZNOC does not recognise the body. This can be confirmed on Facebook page of Oceania Takewondo Union.

I too agree head on format would be good. And yeah I don't enjoy speed skating due to the format and events.
 
If I had to set the events for winter Olympics it'd be:
 
1.500m
2.1500m
3. Pursuit
4. Mass Start (no points and all) 
5. Points Race 32 laps, Sprint every 4th lap, 5-1 points for all sprint and 8,6,4,2,1 for final sprint.
6. Elimination Race 12 laps 3,6,9,11 lap elimination and maximun 8 skaters in 1 heat. QFs SFs Finals format
7.Mixed Relay - Short track system of heats and finals. 
8. 5000m
 
Total 15 events.
 

They don't reject quotas. It was a thing of the past. Like Tokyo both hockey and Water Polo teams will be there.

We don't have any good boxer in this weight. Nikhat Zareen is a 2 time world champion in the Flyweight 50kg. I don't think we have a gold medal favorite this time and there's a fear we may return empty handed or say 1 or 2 medals. Really keeping my expectations low. Maybe Neeraj and Sift Kaur have the highest chances of medals. Nothing assured of anyone.