hosting question

[MSUFENCER]

ok if you were hosting an event lets say an e and under and you have 30 people show up can you seperate it and have two events so more ratings come out of it?

[hpfencing]

I know it has been done. The point of the competitions is not to see how many classifications can be handed out. Fencing started out about honor, where is the honor in handing out a classification

Onethe the reasons that the classification system that USFA does nnot mean much to many that have been fecnign a while is for that exact reason. A club that has 20 fencers could hold and event say E and under ofter and each time get another D and then with enough D's get a C. Fortunately they cannot go past that to a B but..... That D means nothing when they goto nationals and fence a U and get slaughtered 15-2.

If you have kids in the program think of what you are teaching them to do something like that.......

Is it legal, I don't know e-mail dana@usfencing.org and she can tell you. is it right! NO WAY! Does it happen; in backward fencing locations, yes

Just my thoughts

[esskreemr]

Technically, you only need 6 people to give out an e, so you could give out 4 e with 30 people. I can see hpfencing's point that rating inflating is definitely detrimental in the long run. I don't see any problem with this ploy for e ratings. It helps get people stuck on competing. In my experience, an e is easy to get, a d should be more difficult and a c is extremely difficult...

[telkanuru]

Here in New England, the default for lower level events seems to be separating them, but holding them at the same time, so that if there are fewer than say, 15, of each gender, the groups can be mixed. I'm probly going to catch some flack for this, but at the E-D level, I think this set up makes it a bit easier to earn a rating if you're female. I dunno about you, but this dosn't matter very much to me. Plus, if it's an 'E' event, those things are capped at 4 ratings no matter how many people show up. It's nicer to break it up.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Here in New England, the default for lower level events seems to be separating them, but holding them at the same time, so that if there are fewer than say, 15, of each gender, the groups can be mixed. I'm probly going to catch some flack for this, but at the E-D level, I think this set up makes it a bit easier to earn a rating if you're female. I dunno about you, but this dosn't matter very much to me. Plus, if it's an 'E' event, those things are capped at 4 ratings no matter how many people show up. It's nicer to break it up.

I'm pretty sure he's not talking about separating by gender. It sounds like he's separating 30 people into two groups of 15 so that there can be two sets of classifications regardless of gender.

[telkanuru]

Ew. That's stupid. Nothing further to comment.

[whtouche]

Agreed, splitting tournaments to generate more ratings is stupid, and in the new england division (speaking as a member of the executive committee) the semi-official stance is against it, with one member trying to get it into practice and their efforts being shut down by the majority.

It's my personal belief that U tournaments shouldn't even be held at all. The concept of 15 unrated fencers getting together, one of them getting a D!!, and three E's, it seems ill conceived.
E tournaments are preferable I think, therefore the winner has a chance at deserving a D.

[westcoastsabre]

As someone who spent 28 days as an E, I would really be mad if someone got classified ahead of me at a tournament I could not attend (Age-Restricted Tournaments AHEM!)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I'm probly going to catch some flack for this, but at the E-D level, I think this set up makes it a bit easier to earn a rating if you're female.

*shrug* more of my male fencing friends have ratings than the females, but i'm not sure if that's more to do with the people i know or any real commentary on what's easiest.

[Txakurra]

Originally Posted by whtouche

Agreed, splitting tournaments to generate more ratings is stupid, and in the new england division (speaking as a member of the executive committee) the semi-official stance is against it, with one member trying to get it into practice and their efforts being shut down by the majority.

It's my personal belief that U tournaments shouldn't even be held at all. The concept of 15 unrated fencers getting together, one of them getting a D!!, and three E's, it seems ill conceived.
E tournaments are preferable I think, therefore the winner has a chance at deserving a D.

I have learned that the ratings of "D" and below actually mean very little as
it relates to the assumed ability of the fencer. I am an “E” rated fencer that almost always wins against Ds and Es and I win most of my bouts against Cs. However, I go to open tournaments more than any others and almost always I am in the top 10 but get eliminated in my 3rd or 4th DE by an A rated fencer and miss getting my D by one bout.
If I go to these E&under and D&under events I could get the rating sooner, but it just does not matter that much. I would rather learn from the better fencers at the open events. Furthermore, there are a ton of fencers that obtained their ratings at VERY questionable tournaments.

I agree with you that at an un-rated tournament, a U fencer should not be able to get a D rating. I do think that an E could be given if it makes them feel good and if it attracts more young fencers to the sport.
T~

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by hpfencing

I know it has been done. The point of the competitions is not to see how many classifications can be handed out. Fencing started out about honor, where is the honor in handing out a classification

Onethe the reasons that the classification system that USFA does nnot mean much to many that have been fecnign a while is for that exact reason. A club that has 20 fencers could hold and event say E and under ofter and each time get another D and then with enough D's get a C. Fortunately they cannot go past that to a B but..... That D means nothing when they goto nationals and fence a U and get slaughtered 15-2.

If you have kids in the program think of what you are teaching them to do something like that.......

Is it legal, I don't know e-mail dana@usfencing.org and she can tell you. is it right! NO WAY! Does it happen; in backward fencing locations, yes

Just my thoughts

What?
It is ridiculous to suggest that there is something immoral about splitting a tourny into two seperate events if twice as many fencers show up as required to be a classified event.

Why should the same number of ratings be passed out for a tournament with 15 fencers as one with 50 fencers?

There is no reason that it should be deemed unfair, immoral, or unethical to say "If 30 or more fencers show up the event will be split into two seperate events" in the materials advertising the event. (Thus meeting the USFA requirement that all events be properly announced in advance.)

What are truly unfair are those little tournys that are held in the evenings during the week with the same fencers showing up over and over. It is considered legitimate that these events generate ratings. (Eventually all the fencers in the group get Ds then Cs then Bs....etc, inspite of the fact that it is possible that none have actually improved at all.) So explain why you would consider it unethical to seperate a turnout of 40 fencers into two seperate groups of 20, would not all the fencers that get ratings be just as deserving of a rating as fencers in a tourney of 15?

[CarlKnoch]

You people aren't really talking about "ratings inflation" at the D & Under level are you?

There can be no ratings inflation at that level in my opinion as Es and Ds just don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. You could give everyone in your division an E and your open tourneys would be no different than if they were all Unrated.

C

[MyrddinsPrecint]

yeah, but all my newbies could have something awesome to come home and tell the good ol' high school that's trying to eliminate us..... put THAT in your newsletter....

"every single one of our competitive fencers is nationally ranked" ..... which, in your situation, wouldn't exactly be a lie...

[oiuyt]

I believe Northeast division does split 30+ person unclassifieds to double the classifications awarded. Whtouche- this is where the suggestion for New England division came from.

I agree that the point of the process isn't to get rated. If you're good enough and fence often enough you'll eventually get at least the rating you deserve. If you're using it to measure you own improvement then a) you need a better metric that a seriously flawed ratings scheme, and b) it works better (as a metric) if you don't game the system.

That said, look at the size of the unclassified events in NE division last year... I don't have the PdT unclassified results, but the U held at RIFAC in February had 55 men's foilists. That's huge. Does the #2 person in that event deserve only the same classification as the #4 finisher in the 17-person women's event held the same day (I'm not intending this to become a gender issue, it just happened to be a conveniently sized tournament for the point I was trying to make)? Are U events an easier than most path to a D? No question. Once that path has been opened, however, it's arguable that splitting tournaments that are more than double the required size is in line with the intentions of that level on the classification chart.

This argument is likely a contributing factor to NE division not scheduling ANY U events other than the PdT this season.

Ratings aren't important. Worry about improving your fencing rather than improving your classification. Worry about being able to beat fencer X rather than whether or not fencer X has a higher classification than you.

-B :)

[CarlKnoch]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

"every single one of our competitive fencers is nationally ranked" ..... which, in your situation, wouldn't exactly be a lie...

They would not be nationally ranked. They would all have a classification. Being ranked is an entirely different subject.

[Monkeyboy]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

What?
(1) It is ridiculous to suggest that there is something immoral about splitting a tourny into two seperate events if twice as many fencers show up as required to be a classified event.

(2) Why should the same number of ratings be passed out for a tournament with 15 fencers as one with 50 fencers?

(3) There is no reason that it should be deemed unfair, immoral, or unethical to say "If 30 or more fencers show up the event will be split into two seperate events" in the materials advertising the event. (Thus meeting the USFA requirement that all events be properly announced in advance.)

(4) What are truly unfair are those little tournys that are held in the evenings during the week with the same fencers showing up over and over. It is considered legitimate that these events generate ratings. (Eventually all the fencers in the group get Ds then Cs then Bs....etc, inspite of the fact that it is possible that none have actually improved at all.) So explain why you would consider it unethical to seperate a turnout of 40 fencers into two seperate groups of 20, would not all the fencers that get ratings be just as deserving of a rating as fencers in a tourney of 15?

(1) Absolutly its immoral to "split" an event...then its TWO events.

(2) Cause that how many showed up.

(3) See 1

(4) I was under the assumption that you had to announce the tournament (presumably to other clubs in the area) for it to quallify as a ratings tounament. As long as this is done in a timely manner, say at least 7 days prior, than I don't have a problem with it...The "same fencers who show up over and over" are putting in their dues.

It took me SIX YEARS to get my E, although I fenced in a tough division at the time. Soon after that I got my D and a year or so later got my C, but the E was (and should be) very special to me. Yes , MP I would like to see more younger and/or beginer fencers get "ranked". What a morale boost! They can boast about it and get some reconition for their club or school, but the road there should be paved with more frequent "U only" or "E and under" or "D and under" tournaments, not simply handing out as many rewards as possible.

[Prometheus]

A letter classification without the skill to back it up is rarely if ever useful. The initial seeding gets thrown out after the first round of pools anyway, and I would wager that a slight seeding related advantage in the pools would be successfully buffered within the first two rounds of DE's.

I wonder if people would care less about these things if the classifications had to be re-earned every year like national points do.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Ratings aren't important. Worry about improving your fencing rather than improving your classification. Worry about being able to beat fencer X rather than whether or not fencer X has a higher classification than you.

Hear, hear.

I feel I should amend my previous flat out rejection. I've been on the recieving end of the 50 fricking people at a U (yes, at RIFAC; well, more like 40). And I fought to within 2 points of my E. It felt good. Much better than say, winning a 15 person tourney and achieving a rating. A rating is not necessary to defeat someone else with a rating. However, it would be lovely to refer to myself as a 'E' or a 'D' and remove that U from my card which is somehow embarrasing, even though I know it shouldn't be. Additionally, I'm not overly concerned by the argument about unmerited ratings. If someone is, say, an unmerited C and I beat them, then their rating dosn't matter to me. In short, I wouldn't do it, but I have no objection if others want to. More rated people for me to beat

[Peach]

I personally wouldn't mind a few more E's and D's being generated. It would make some of my pools a little less bizarre. All too often, the fencers who are intended to be the low seeds are better than their classifications suggest, such as my first-round pool in the Mid-Atlantic Sectionals last weekend.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Monkeyboy

(1) Absolutly its immoral to "split" an event...then its TWO events.

(2) Cause that how many showed up.

(3) See 1

(4) I was under the assumption that you had to announce the tournament (presumably to other clubs in the area) for it to quallify as a ratings tounament. As long as this is done in a timely manner, say at least 7 days prior, than I don't have a problem with it...The "same fencers who show up over and over" are putting in their dues.

It took me SIX YEARS to get my E, although I fenced in a tough division at the time. Soon after that I got my D and a year or so later got my C, but the E was (and should be) very special to me. Yes , MP I would like to see more younger and/or beginer fencers get "ranked". What a morale boost! They can boast about it and get some reconition for their club or school, but the road there should be paved with more frequent "U only" or "E and under" or "D and under" tournaments, not simply handing out as many rewards as possible.

Yes, I suggested that in the advertising for the event you would announce that if more than 30 fencers show up that it will be split into TWO events. that satisfies the USFA requirement that you pre-announce the event.

It makes no sense that the same number of ratings should be handed out at an event with 50 fencers as one with 15. Therefore it is logical to split the event into TWO events....yes that makes it TWO events, as you pointed out...... if more than 30 fencers show up.

As for "putting in thier dues," what does "putting in your dues" have to do with ratings? That is just dumb. Ratings are not intended to be a reward for "putting in your dues." They are intended to be used for seeding purposes in tournaments. The purpose of this seeding is to attain a cross section of abilities in the pools.