When should everyone get a medal?

[skribs]

Before we get into the thread, I want to make a few points clear. I'm not saying that everyone should get a medal in all competitions. I'm definitely not saying there should be no reward for winning or for being more successful in your bracket.

In most tournaments I've been to, participants are placed in brackets of usually 3 or 4 players. Sometimes 1 or 2, sometimes 5 or 6. If there are 8 participants in a certain category, usually they'll get placed into two brackets of 4.

Now, a single-elimination bracket of 4 or less means everyone gets a medal. In a 4-player bracket this typically means that the losers of round 1 get bronze, and the winners of round 1 fight for gold and silver. In a 2-player bracket, they just fight for gold and silver. 3-player bracket involves a little bit more detail, but eventually there will be one fighter each who gets gold, silver, and bronze.

If you are one of the few put into a 5- or 6-player bracket, then you are in one of the few brackets where 4 people medal and 1 or 2 don't. In my experience, this means that 98% of those competing in a tournament get a medal (most simply by being in a 4-player bracket or smaller), and that 2% are in the 5- and 6-player groups and don't get a medal. Even worse, in those groups, the players that randomly got a bye in the first round are guaranteed a medal. In these cases, I think it would be better to split the brackets up, just like if there were 7 players and they got split into two groups of 4 and 3.

Let's take an extreme example on the other direction and say 32 players are in a bracket in which 4 will medal. In this case, 87.5% of players will not medal and 12.5% will, so medalling feels more like a reward. In the case where 98% of players medal and 2% don't, failing to medal feels like a punishment.

What is the threshold or group size in which medalling feels like a reward, instead of not medalling feeling like a punishment? If 1/2 medal and 1/2 don't? If 1/4 medal? 1/3? How do you balance it out so that brackets with a dozen people (such as kid's age 10-12 intermediate) don't feel unfair to brackets with only a couple people (such as adult age 40-50 beginner)?

 

[Hot Lunch]

I got silver medal for one match that I lost (i.e., for being 0-1). Our association had kata and kumite tournaments, and for 35 and up male kumite, there was only me and one other person who signed up. He got gold, I got silver.

I'm not sure if children and/or their parents noticed it or paid attention, but if they did and were angry about it, I wouldn't blame them.

In this case, if the only medal to be awarded was the gold to him, that would be 1/2 ,which seems fair to me. The number of people who medaled should not be higher than the number of people who don't.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I've been to a lot of open tournaments and never saw or heard of anyone complaining about the ratio of medals to to number of competitors. Sometimes a division had few fighters and everyone or most got trophies for just one or two bouts. In huge tournaments, like the Internationals, you could win five or six matches and still not place. That was just the way it worked out and no one made a big deal about it - sometimes a trophy is easier to win than other times.

Many times it's the luck of the draw whether you first get paired up with an average fighter or the guy who ends up getting first place. This is a fact of life where success in any field may come easy or hard. You graciously take what you get and appreciate it.

Now, back in the day, all sparring participants got nice patches with the tournament logo, a commemoration of one's stepping into combat (without pads in those days.) Parker's International Karate Championships, Norris' and Stone's Four Seasons, and the Southbay Championships are some that come to mind. I don't know if it's that common anymore.

Bottom line for me is you fight the best you can, try not to look silly, learn something about sparring (and yourself) and have a little excitement. Trophies or medals are nice but should never be the reason for training.

 

[drop bear]

It mostly doesn't make a difference if anyone gets a medal. So hand em out I say.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Trophies or medals are nice but should never be the reason for training.

It mostly doesn't make a difference if anyone gets a medal. So hand em out I say.

No one wants accolades to simply be given to them. Most people would feel better walking away with nothing than something they feel they didn't earn. Even if it's a "participation trophy," you at least met the stipulations that you knew of ahead of time.

That silver medal that I got for being 0-1, because only one other male above the of 35 signed up for kumite? I still have it because it's a nice piece of wall candy, but that's it. I think that most people would have thrown it in the trash. I said that I believe that 1/2 should be the upper limit of who gets medals or trophies, and different people may draw the line at different places. But other than that, I think everyone can agree that any trophy, medal, or ribbon that indicates placement should never be awarded to someone who is 0-X. You should have at least one win.

 

[skribs]

But other than that, I think everyone can agree that any trophy, medal, or ribbon that indicates placement should never be awarded to someone who is 0-X. You should have at least one win.

You beat all of the people who were too scared or unmotivated to show up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I got silver medal for one match that I lost (i.e., for being 0-1). Our association had kata and kumite tournaments, and for 35 and up male kumite, there was only me and one other person who signed up. He got gold, I got silver.

I'm not sure if children and/or their parents noticed it or paid attention, but if they did and were angry about it, I wouldn't blame them.

In this case, if the only medal to be awarded was the gold to him, that would be 1/2 ,which seems fair to me. The number of people who medaled should not be higher than the number of people who don't.

I'm with you on this one. If I were in a 4-person bracket, I'd be quite happy not to get a medal if I was in the bottom half (losing my one match). The only exception I can think of that makes sense is if you also had the two who lost the first round compete against each other. In that case, the bronze goes to someone who reasonably earned it. I don't think awarding the bronze in that case is any weaker than awarding the silver (each only won one match). It'd leave one person out, but I think most folks would be happier (even the one with no medal - they at least got to have another match, which was the reason they went).

I'd also expect a 6-person group to award only 3 medals. OP's post indicates that's not the result - I can't quite envision how a 5 or 6 person single-elimination bracket works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It mostly doesn't make a difference if anyone gets a medal. So hand em out I say.

For those who enjoy the recognition, I do think it degrades the experience if everyone gets them.

Mind you, there are things I've participated in where everyone gets a medal if they finish (mud run/obstacle course races), but for those (outside the competitive waves, which are usually separate), participation is the point, and finishing is the achievement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You beat all of the people who were too scared or unmotivated to show up.

And that would be fair grounds for a participation award (like the identical medals everyone got at the mud runs I've done). But a ranked medal typically indicates an achievement at the event. So I'd be okay if eveyone who didn't rank (like those who were 0-X) got a participation award of some sort, but I'd prefer it wasn't one of the rank medals.

 

[_Simon_]

You beat all of the people who were too scared or unmotivated to show up.

Good point. I remember competing in the forms division a few years ago. Absolutely no one except me in the division. Dang it! But they still asked if I wanted to perform for the medal/trophy. I said yeah sure.

I remember feeling weird about getting this big trophy... but truthfully that was still damn hard to go out there under pressure and perform. So that's what it meant for me.

 

[HighKick]

Before we get into the thread, I want to make a few points clear. I'm not saying that everyone should get a medal in all competitions. I'm definitely not saying there should be no reward for winning or for being more successful in your bracket.

In most tournaments I've been to, participants are placed in brackets of usually 3 or 4 players. Sometimes 1 or 2, sometimes 5 or 6. If there are 8 participants in a certain category, usually they'll get placed into two brackets of 4.

Now, a single-elimination bracket of 4 or less means everyone gets a medal. In a 4-player bracket this typically means that the losers of round 1 get bronze, and the winners of round 1 fight for gold and silver. In a 2-player bracket, they just fight for gold and silver. 3-player bracket involves a little bit more detail, but eventually there will be one fighter each who gets gold, silver, and bronze.

If you are one of the few put into a 5- or 6-player bracket, then you are in one of the few brackets where 4 people medal and 1 or 2 don't. In my experience, this means that 98% of those competing in a tournament get a medal (most simply by being in a 4-player bracket or smaller), and that 2% are in the 5- and 6-player groups and don't get a medal. Even worse, in those groups, the players that randomly got a bye in the first round are guaranteed a medal. In these cases, I think it would be better to split the brackets up, just like if there were 7 players and they got split into two groups of 4 and 3.

Let's take an extreme example on the other direction and say 32 players are in a bracket in which 4 will medal. In this case, 87.5% of players will not medal and 12.5% will, so medalling feels more like a reward. In the case where 98% of players medal and 2% don't, failing to medal feels like a punishment.

What is the threshold or group size in which medalling feels like a reward, instead of not medalling feeling like a punishment? If 1/2 medal and 1/2 don't? If 1/4 medal? 1/3? How do you balance it out so that brackets with a dozen people (such as kid's age 10-12 intermediate) don't feel unfair to brackets with only a couple people (such as adult age 40-50 beginner)?

We have never done 4 medals. One gold, one silver, one bronze. This adds value to me in most cases so it is the best a tournament host can do.

Group size never played a huge factor for me. It was more about the level of competition. If the wins were powder puff, they did not mean as much. If I got bronze or did not even place but the competition was fantastic, I felt great.

 

[hoshin1600]

I dont know the correct way to address the issue but I do feel that if you did something in life it would be nice to have something tangible so that 20 to 50 years later, so you can look back and remember. I ran a very difficult road race when I was younger. The only person I beat to the finish line was the ambulance driver. I'm sure I got a t-shirt but that's long gone. A small participation token would be nice to have.

 

[HighKick]

Good point. I remember competing in the forms division a few years ago. Absolutely no one except me in the division. Dang it! But they still asked if I wanted to perform for the medal/trophy. I said yeah sure.

I remember feeling weird about getting this big trophy... but truthfully that was still damn hard to go out there under pressure and perform. So that's what it meant for me.

I feel that was a Lot of the same self-induced pressure we put on ourselves too often. Can really wreck the mental process.

 

[HighKick]

No one wants accolades to simply be given to them. Most people would feel better walking away with nothing than something they feel they didn't earn. Even if it's a "participation trophy," you at least met the stipulations that you knew of ahead of time.

That silver medal that I got for being 0-1, because only one other male above the of 35 signed up for kumite? I still have it because it's a nice piece of wall candy, but that's it. I think that most people would have thrown it in the trash. I said that I believe that 1/2 should be the upper limit of who gets medals or trophies, and different people may draw the line at different places. But other than that, I think everyone can agree that any trophy, medal, or ribbon that indicates placement should never be awarded to someone who is 0-X. You should have at least one win.

But that is how tournaments with medal events have to be ran. Unless they are circuit events and you know going in how many competitors will be there, you let those who show up compete and give out medals accordingly. No harm no foul. How the competitors 'feel' can't dictate how medals are given out.

Can you imagine putting out a tournament flyer that says something like "if less than 'X' people show up, no medals will be given"? Your tournament host day would end very quickly.

 

[drop bear]

Fights quite often have looser trophies.

You do a MMA or something you will get a medal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But that is how tournaments with medal events have to be ran. Unless they are circuit events and you know going in how many competitors will be there, you let those who show up compete and give out medals accordingly. No harm no foul. How the competitors 'feel' can't dictate how medals are given out.

Can you imagine putting out a tournament flyer that says something like "if less than 'X' people show up, no medals will be given"? Your tournament host day would end very quickly.

I don’t know that’s true. You wouldn’t have to advertise the complexities of the medal awarding - just put it in the rules and make those available to anyone who wants them. I think most folks would compete either way.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

they will only get medal when they deserve it and when they do really good in forms or sparring

 

[HighKick]

I don’t know that’s true. You wouldn’t have to advertise the complexities of the medal awarding - just put it in the rules and make those available to anyone who wants them. I think most folks would compete either way.

You could. But unless you have a stellar host site and other things that attract people to come, once many of them found out the medal situation, it would be their last visit to your tournament.
We do not have a fancy sports complex to host tournaments at like I see in bigger cities. They usually have much better spectator seating, access, and better facilities than the public-school gymnasiums we have to use. I get complaints about this every year but there is not much I can do since they are the only place with an inside room big enough for competition.
Marketing is always tricky, and the best things we have going is our consistency, reliability, and fairly long history. With the exception of 2- years for Covid, we have had a tournament every year since 1982.
We started bringing in some external 'roach coaches' that have better food and that seems to help with viewership. Changing the floor layout to a more 'official' format and making more accommodation for coaches also helped bring in clubs from farther away.
The right formula for hosting tournaments always seems to be in flux for us. We did try the 'everyone gets a medal' for a couple of years. It just ended up as more expense and overhead with zero return on positive feedback or participation.

Conversely, I have hosted an open tournament for 12-years that is about as blue collar as it gets. It is at our school, which make it a smaller event but man oh man is it fun. No kids under 17.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You could. But unless you have a stellar host site and other things that attract people to come, once many of them found out the medal situation, it would be their last visit to your tournament.
We do not have a fancy sports complex to host tournaments at like I see in bigger cities. They usually have much better spectator seating, access, and better facilities than the public-school gymnasiums we have to use. I get complaints about this every year but there is not much I can do since they are the only place with an inside room big enough for competition.
Marketing is always tricky, and the best things we have going is our consistency, reliability, and fairly long history. With the exception of 2- years for Covid, we have had a tournament every year since 1982.
We started bringing in some external 'roach coaches' that have better food and that seems to help with viewership. Changing the floor layout to a more 'official' format and making more accommodation for coaches also helped bring in clubs from farther away.
The right formula for hosting tournaments always seems to be in flux for us. We did try the 'everyone gets a medal' for a couple of years. It just ended up as more expense and overhead with zero return on positive feedback or participation.

Conversely, I have hosted an open tournament for 12-years that is about as blue collar as it gets. It is at our school, which make it a smaller event but man oh man is it fun. No kids under 17.

Nothing in this post seems to be counter to my thought that only giving medals to those who have a chance to earn them would not (as you seem to claim) cause a mass exodus of participants. In fact, your own statement about participation medals not bringing more folks in seems to suggest folks aren’t coming just to get a medal, no matter what.

What did I miss?

 

[HighKick]

Nothing in this post seems to be counter to my thought that only giving medals to those who have a chance to earn them would not (as you seem to claim) cause a mass exodus of participants. In fact, your own statement about participation medals not bringing more folks in seems to suggest folks aren’t coming just to get a medal, no matter what.

What did I miss?

I guess I wasn't clear in saying 'participation trophies' just don't work. I suppose the exception may be for a 6-year-old and under tournament.