Early Champion of Champions Seedings

[Rhys Benjamin]

Partly inspired by Graeme's numbers solutions thread, I felt compelled to have a quick glance at Mike's wonderful notes again. And whilst I would really like to buy a VHS player so I can finally find a way of getting my worn-out copy of Episode 2749 on YouTube, it got me looking at the incredible, if all too short, COC10. But because that was shoved into "betwixtmas" week 1999, Scott Mearns and Kate Ogilvie got a bye, and thus the remaining 4 were either drawn or seeded, not sure. There is a possible seedings explanation where the two "wildcards" were 5 and 6 and then sorted by 9-round points only... or something...?

But it also showed me COCs I-VI were definitely seeded, which I have copied from Mike's notes and added to the wikis for those tournaments. Before 1998 points took precedence over wins, so they've stuck to the then rules for COCs 2, 3, 4, and 6, no problems there (despite the fact it gives those who have a 14-rounder counting a huge advantage).

However, for COC I and V it's a complete mess.

Prior to Series 21 losing scores did not count towards points totals, and thus I'm not sure if this change comes in in time for COC5 or not. However, regardless of this, I cannot make head or tail of Mandi Hale's #4 seeding, which is 358 if you don't include losing scores and 463 if you do. However, if losing scores are included, she should in theory drop behind Lindsay Denyer (450 without, 470 with losses), Michael Wareham (438 without, 472 with), and Gino Corr (411 without, 512 with). It's not helped by the fact that many of the points totals given in Mike's notes explicitly state the show's points totals are not mathematically accurate for many of the contestants in that series.

COC1 is also particularly difficult. If you apply the "then" rules to Series 1 Joyce Cansfield is particularly an outlier. It's not helped by the fact we're missing a draw and a loss for her. Whether losses count or not, there's no way you can get her up to anything approaching 300 or 400, especially since we know 66 was the highest score of Series 1, the metamax (with only 10 points, not 18, given for nines) being only 90, AND Richard Whiteley telling us in Andy Bruno's Series 1 games that no one had ever got a 9 "yet" (thus incorporating Joyce's run). The Supreme Championship doesn't help because, although all the contestants had a scrolling text of information in their first SC games, they only told us what we already know about her (which was W4 D1 L2 including COC1, thus W2 D1 L1 until then). It can't be averages either as Mark Nyman shouldn't be #1 seed if his losing score in the grand final doesn't count.

So if you're a logic and maths genius and you have a solution, then we're all ears.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's all discussed here.

[Gavin Chipper]

I might also edit the original post to put in the corrections that were later discovered so the top post is correct.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's all discussed here.

Rhys, if you go to the linked thread now, it should be fairly accurate. CoC V is sorted. I think you must have made an adding up error with Lindsay Denyer. Her total is 450 with losses. All points from all games count, and it should add up.

CoC I is a bit bizarre. As said in the other thread, if you ignore Mark Nyman, then if you sort by stage reached and then use highest heat score as a tie-break, then it works. Maybe Mark was wildcarded up to number 1 based on his overall performance. But I would go with that for the wiki until we get any further clarification.

I also think there are a couple of mistakes on the wiki. I noticed a few discrepencies between the wiki and my own calculations and checked them. Some were my mistake, but a couple remain. Hilary Hopper's total (CoC IV) should be 460, not 450. And Jackie McLeod's total (CoC VI) should be 359, not 292).

[Rhys Benjamin]

I did them from Mike's notes for 2-6, although as I said he notes there are differences from the show/the maths.

[Gavin Chipper]

I did them from Mike's notes for 2-6, although as I said he notes there are differences from the show/the maths.

OK, but correcting Denyer's score does sort out the discrepency so that should probably be changed. With the others, there should at least be an asterisk saying it's the wrong total saying what the right one is.

Edit - It's also possible they calculated the seedings correctly, but for the show introductions just did it again on the fly and messed it up.

[Rhys Benjamin]

You're more than welcome to edit it accordingly on the wiki since you seemingly know what the real scores are/should be.

[Gavin Chipper]

You're more than welcome to edit it accordingly on the wiki since you seemingly know what the real scores are/should be.

I've made some corrections. Feel free to check/tidy up as you see appropriate. I haven't touched series 1 though. I'll look into that later.