3 ms·
It seems like a bad move to have a participant responsible for drilling the holes and attaching the strings. Also I don’t understand the one paragraph aside ab
by bee_rider 2y ago
It seems like a bad move to have a participant responsible for drilling the holes and attaching the strings.
Also I don’t understand the one paragraph aside about the American who is never mentioned before or after(?)
- silisili 2y agoThe guy the article is about won the men's. At the end, the men's champ plays the women's champ for overall champion. This American mentioned was the women's champ, who apparently went on to beat him. Which either means he wasn't cheating, or was and then played fairly on the last match?
- penjelly 2y agoI assume he wouldn't cheat everytime and instead would only do it to reduce the overall wear on the chestnut over many matches?
- School-Cotton 2y agoApparently they pick a new one each round.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago>It seems like a bad move to have a participant responsible for drilling the holes and attaching the strings. It is probably the kind of event where the only people who would be willing to do the timely prep work are the contestants.
- mbo 2y ago>It seems like a bad move to have a participant responsible for drilling the holes and attaching the strings. Part of the "point" of conkers is that conker-prep is just as much as a skill as the technique during the hitting phase. I think this was just poor scrutineering (or corruption) on the organizers side.
- bee_rider 2y agoThat would make sense to me, but it seems like maybe it isn’t how they did it? > Jakins was responsible for drilling and inserting strings into other competitors’ chestnuts as the competition’s top judge, known as the “King Conker”.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mbo 2y agoRidiculous. A perversion of the true spirit of conkers.