For me, one of the most rewarding parts of competing in the Saber Tour circuit is the Rankings. I love watching how the scene shifts after every tournament and tracking individual fighters’ movement over time.

But all of this had left me with a question: Why are some fighters, who reach the Table of 32 at 3 tournaments and the pool stage in another, ranked above those such as Quentin Collet (from Les Exiles de la Force) who attend only two events but make the Table of 16 at both?

And I think it’s because of the way the Saber Tour ranking is constructed. I think that because the ranking takes the Top 4 tournaments from each fighter, meaning that mid-level fighters who can access tournaments are rewarded more highly than those who do incredibly well in occasional events.

I don’t mean this in a way that cheapens the achievements of those fighters, all the athletes on the Tour fight to an incredible level, but I do feel that the current ranking system overly favours the fighters based in France, as the vast majority of the events are over there.

Personally,I think this isn’t a huge issue, as most interest in the sport also comes from French clubs and fighters. But I do think that there are a few fighters who are being let down by the current formula.

Jacob Walker-Wilkinson for example, finished in 19th place at the Open de France in June and 12th at the recent UK Open (giving an average finish of 16.50 in counted competitions) , however because he’s only filled out 2 of the 4 available competition slots he’s only at Rank 37 worldwide, tied with Joseph Mala-Ducrohet (average finish of 32.00 in counted competitions).

This isn’t just an issue as far as Ranking displays are concerned, it also impacts the fairness and balance of tournament draws.

For example, at the UK Open last month, Marco Cuomo was drawn into his group in the bottom seed, seemingly on a similar calibre with fighters such as those from Vanguard Lightsaber Academy, but Marco has never finished outside of at least the Table of 16 in any Saber Tour event.

The result? Pool 1 became a “Group of Death” and Esther Gaigne, the 3rd highest seed in the group, was pushed down into the play-offs for the Table of 32. This sort of inaccurate group draw is again, not a huge issue in the grand scheme of the Tour, but I can see it being annoying for the fighters on the receiving end.

Of course, I can completely understand why the Tour ranks fighters the way it does. Our sport is still young and we do need to encourage fighters to travel to tournaments and grow the competitive scene. 

But despite this, I do feel that the system is (most likely unintentionally) weighted towards fighters from SSL Paris and other clubs in that area. Paris hosts three events every year now, the Open de France, the Open Nec Mergitur and the Interne SSL.

What this means is that SSL fighters will find a lot easier and cheaper to hit the four tournaments needed to maximise their ranking potential, and also may not have spotted the issues that I, as a fighter on one of the fringes of the scene – being based in the UK – have been exposed to.

And I think there is a solution, I personally think that for me, a fairer way to rank fighters would be to take their Top 2 tournament finishes and rank them based on those.

I’m not here to pressure the organisers of the Tour into changing anything rapidly, as I do agree that the current system of ranking encourages travel and participation, which is desperately needed to grow the Tour.

However if anyone is interested in seeing what the Rankings would look like if only the Top 2 tournaments were taken into account, then I have produced a google sheet showing just that.

This brings me to a closely related issue: the role of Interne tournaments in the ranking system.

Sport Saber League runs one, FAR 35 runs one, and Lupo Giallo runs one, and while these events are undeniably valuable for referee development and internal club growth, I’m not convinced they should count towards official international rankings.

The level of competition, size of the bracket, and diversity of fighters simply aren’t comparable to open Saber Tour events. In some cases, the field is so small that the ranking effect becomes disproportionate.

For example, Lupo Giallo’s most recent Interne had only six participants, and the winner is now World #44 purely from that result. It’s hard to argue that this reflects the athlete’s position in a global context.

And yes, the Interne SSL has some of the world’s strongest players and a field comparable in size to the Riviera Open, but however you look at it I still believe Internes are, in a way, purely contrived ranking boosts that grant points that do not necessarily respect the athlete’s skill.

But again, I’m not at all against the idea of Interne events – only against them counting in the International Circuit.

The sheet I linked above, for this reason, does not count Interne tournaments because I want it to be as fair and skill-based a system as possible.

Taken together, these issues highlight that the Tour now has two viable ranking models to choose between.

One continues with the present philosophy, rewarding fighters who invest time, travel and repeated participation – a model well-suited for developing a young sport. 

The other is a recalibrated, performance-focused model aimed at recognising exceptional fighters regardless of location or tournament access. 

Each approach has strengths, but choosing between them will define what the Saber Tour believes its rankings should represent as it matures.

And ultimately, that raises the central question: should the international ranking reward the very best fighters… or simply those with the time, money, and proximity needed to attend more tournaments?

May The Force Be With You

A small note: I think I do owe an apology for the tone of the conclusion, it came across somewhat more aggressively than I meant it to and I’m sorry for that – I really am in awe of every fighter’s skill and commitment to the sport.