Separate Men's & Women's Events Fair or Not?

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

For some reason, ya'll are not getting it....This is not about mixing events at a local level. This is about sectional circuit tournaments...one step below a NAC...more like an RYC.
And by the way, I don't agree with you on incouraging a Y14 young girl to fence an open mixed sabre tournament. Especially on the fact that she passed up the qualifying event that would put her at SNat with her own age group.

The RYC Competitions are already mixed. Yes it is true. It is also true that many RYC are won by FEMALE fencers.
In our division, we have a bunch of very strong saber fencers. Their ratings make male fencers get better ratings. In even age groups as in Cadet, the male and females are pretty much equal with the women having an edge for the most part at least in saber.
Those boys get their ratings from fencing girls.
There are mixed opens at the Airforce Academy in Colorado Springs. The women do not always finish behind the men or even often. A 14 year old female fencer is quite capable of fencing most opens and doing well in them.
Maybe she cannot or does not want to go to Summer Nationals.

[telkanuru]

This is my problem: if the events were only mixed or only M/W, that would be fine. Unfortunately, there is a tendancy to do a Women's event and then a mixed. If you're going to do that, I would appreciate a men's event, too. However, if one does this, then it seems to me that the M/W events would become the tourney, while the mixed would become a fun side thing, in which case it dosn't make sense to have it, since large tourneys are frequently mismanaged, and staying to fence until 11pm dosn't appeal to some people for some reason.

[germanguy]

.....

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

I can only add to this argument by going over one person...my own sabre student. She's 14 years old and would like to compete...however, even in a division as large as SoCal the numbers for a Y14 womens sabre are just tiny. As such, she elected to pass on the Y14 qualifier last weekend in favor of the open sabre next weekend in Palm Desert...Her take is that she wants to fence more and different people...a gender segregated event would take away that appeal. This may change when she starts looking at JOs or youth NACs, but at the local level...she's got no prob fencing guys...she just wants the numbers to be worth the effort.

Sam: Why didn't you encourage her to fence in the qualifier to keep her path to the Summer Nats open, and then double up on the Palm Desert meet?

After all, she'd be able to fence 40-50 new fencers in Y14 in Charlotte. That has to count for something!

[Swordmaster]

The following is a rebutal to your last post,

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

This is about a Section Circuit Cup Series. But the section Circuit is NOT one step below a NAC and despite the constant statements by some; the USFA is NOT looking at the Southwest Section Circuit cup series as any kind of model for future qualifications.

The argument for segregation there is that women in the men’s event would skew the results and not reflect the top competitors in the section. Fencers from outside the section are allowed to enter these events and are very often in the top 8 and often the winner of theses events. So even if the USFA was thinking of using the Section Circuit cup series as some sort of qualifying tool the competitors from outside the section would cause a bigger problem that the female entries.
Regionalization will not exclude a fencer from fencing out of their region. If you go to a regional event and do well, you will get the same points as if you stayed in your own region. Evidently you do not know anything about this coming structure nor that this section HAS been looked at for modeling. It is one of the few that has been successful in drawing large number of fencers to a series of tournaments, not just the CCO.



Now the numbers. The tournaments in this section circuit cup series vary greatly in size. But are normally the largest events in the particular division.

Total Entries ALL EVENTS
Longhorn Open 298
Katy Blades 191
Rose Condon 195
Oz Parsons 138
Crescent City 343
Degall 154

Now the important numbers for the 2 biggest events.

Longhorn
Mixed Foil 89 (27 women) – B2 event, Women’s Foil 27 – C1 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 3Of the 3 that didn't fence the womens event, 1 was a B and that would've possibly made it a B2 event.

Mixed Epee 100 (19 women) – A3 event, Women’s Epee 33 - B2 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 5Of the 5 that didn't fence the womens event - 3 were A's and would've made the womens event a possible A2 event.

Mixed Saber 89 (10 women) – B2 event, Women’s Saber 10 – E1 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 5If the 5 would have fenced in the womens event it would've been a D1

Crescent City
Mixed Foil 143 (26 women) - A2/B3 event, Women’s Foil 36 – B2 event This was a farily strong women's event, It's a shame that the divison could find two A women to come in and make it an A2 event. But when you are concentrating all your energy on making the MIXED event big, the women get kicked to the side!
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 6 (1 due to injury, a few due to ah hangovers)Did the fencer that placed 83 get injured in this event? hmmm I'am glad we have waviers of liability.

35% of the entries in the Crescent City are from outside the section!
So how will segregation increase any event? Fencing separate events, such as they do at any qualifying tournament or larger, is not supposed to make any one tournament larger. That is not what it is about. It is about the strengthening of womens events and preparing the next generation of young women to fence other young women on a national and international basis.
We have heard from multiple clubs and people that will simply choose a different event if Mixed is not offered. Not "boycotting" per say, simply choosing another tournament. Using the CCO number the total event would have a reduction of 42 entries, which equals over $600 in lost revenue!As someone else put in a previous post, they are not hurting anyone but themselves by not fencing. And for that matter, what other huge tournament will the folks in Florida go to?? I guess you will have to charge the remaining 300 fencers an extra $2 each (like that is going to bother someone who is in New Orleans) to cover the loss of revenue from the winers

[R. Exnicios]

S. / T. I am sorry you feel this is some sort of personal fight or attempt by me to get some sort of fame and fortune.

Your facts and figures are incorrect!

The only events this season that were "large events were the Longhorn & the CCO. The others were at least 100 entries smaller and in some cases 1/2 the size. They are good tournaments but not in the same ballpark.

The numbers we have at this time are from the web and old fashion number crunching (i.e. counting) once we file and can propound discovery we will have the exact numbers.

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

Crescent City
...This was a fairly strong women's event, It's a shame that the division could find two A women to come in and make it an A2 event. But when you are concentrating all your energy on making the MIXED event big, the women get kicked to the side!

CCO was forced to schedule the event the same weekend as NCAAs. The Crescent city was the highest rated mixed foil, women's foil, and mixed saber. CCO tied for the highest rated women's epee and women's saber events. Look at the events in the other divisions before you point out what the CCO did or did not do.

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

As someone else put in a previous post, they are not hurting anyone but themselves by not fencing. And for that matter, what other huge tournament will the folks in Florida go to?? I guess you will have to charge the remaining 300 fencers an extra $2 each (like that is going to bother someone who is in New Orleans) to cover the loss of revenue from the winers

That is not the point but it's nice to see how you are thinking. If the top women in this section & outside this section decide to not fence in the SSCC events and chose to fence in other events instead they are not hurting themselves they will be killing the SSCC events. And the blame will be on this close-minded segregation idea.

The point is our fencers; the fencers in this section are having their right to choose whether or not to compete is being restricted. i.e. they are being discriminated against because they are female. The reasons for the discrimination are just not compelling to allow discrimination.

Now for those of you somewhat on the outside of all this. It is not that one tournament decided to be men's and women's and not mixed. That would be bad and still illegal but it would not rise to the same level as what is going on here. In this case the Section is telling the divisions and the Local organizing Committees how they must run their event. And what they are saying, among all sorts of things that we are waiting to hear about, is that the events MUST be segregated.

This may all go away on its own. We have been contact by a few divisions who will more than likely ignore the mandate and may take action on their own.

We will try to keep you posted as this soap opera unfolds. Once it gets really hot, however I will no longer be able to keep the masses informed.

Cheers

And please continue to contact us with your support or criticisms

[R. Exnicios]

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

(1 due to injury, a few due to ah hangovers) Did the fencer that placed 83 get injured in this event? hmmm I'am glad we have waviers of liability.

I must disagree, the fencer that came in 83 was not injured and fenced in the women’s. The injury was from the fencer who came in 17th,and she is the same fencer with the B that did not fence in the women's at the Longhorn. She will not fence in the women's events. She fences in the mixed events because her son fences in the mixed. If it were not mixed she would not fence, just coach. You know this!


Ladies and Gentlemen can disagree and even sue each other and be respectful to each other and Not make it a personal issue. Lets try to do this.

[neevel]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I've seen the following rule applied to tournaments where organizers wanted to ensure adequate participation in women's events, while not barring mixed competition:

Fencers may enter an event for the other sex if that event will be stronger than their own sex's event, but if they do so they must also compete in their own sex's event as well.


-Dave

[Swordmaster]

R.E,
T. has nothing to do with this post. If T. did your computer would be on fire about now.
Cheers,
S.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by neevel

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I've seen the following rule applied to tournaments where organizers wanted to ensure adequate participation in women's events, while not barring mixed competition:

Fencers may enter an event for the other sex if that event will be stronger than their own sex's event, but if they do so they must also compete in their own sex's event as well.


-Dave

Yeah Dave,
We tried two years ago to get that through the section, but at that time there was a large contigent of the "Mixed or Death" crowd in attendance. I think that would work for keeping the strength of the womens events up, but getting the "elite" to agree and follow through is a different matter.
We even tried spliting the days the events were fenced on (mixed on sat. womens on sun.) and they wouldn't stay or come early enough to fence both events.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

Ladies and Gentlemen can disagree and even sue each other and be respectful to each other and Not make it a personal issue. Lets try to do this.

Sorry about the number 83 thing, it was intended as a joke, and most folks just won't get it.
I have absolutely no personal issues or axes to grind in this. I am just an x-chair of a division and have been looking at this issue for the past few years.
I don't have a wife that fences in these events nor do I coach any female students. uh hum.

[mlr2fence]

I have noticed that sometimes male and female fencers are grouped together to up the numbers in tournaments where only a handful of women enter the event so that they have more bouts (i.e. instead of a pool of 4 women in a women's only event they are mixed in with the men for normal sized pools and DEs). This is good in that the women have more bouts for their effort in attending the tournament. Where it gets strange is when the women are then separated out for awards and the 'winner' of the women's event didn't fence a single woman (or at most one other woman) but had the best overall result of the women--a result obtained by fencing the men! Also another factor to consider in combining male/female fencers is in the youth events, which are also frequently combined. I've seen young teen lads definitely change their style--slow down, be a bit more tentative, go for umm...should I say more 'neutral' target areas when fencing the gals, especially at the age when the guys 'discover' girls and are a bit 'shy'. It can be quite interesting/humorous to watch. This really doesn't help either fencer since the girl would benefit more by the guy fencing full speed.

[i'mnottelling]

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

Now the numbers. The tournaments in this section circuit cup series vary greatly in size. But are normally the largest events in the particular division.



Now the important numbers for the 2 biggest events.

Longhorn
Mixed Foil 89 (27 women) – B2 event, Women’s Foil 27 – C1 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 3

Mixed Epee 100 (19 women) – A3 event, Women’s Epee 33 - B2 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 5

Mixed Saber 89 (10 women) – B2 event, Women’s Saber 10 – E1 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 5

Crescent City
Mixed Foil 143 (26 women) - A2/B3 event, Women’s Foil 36 – B2 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 6 (1 due to injury, a few due to ah hangovers)

Mixed Epee 81 (10 women) A2/B3 event, Women’s Epee 26 – B2 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 0

Mixed Saber 47 (6 women) – B2 event, Women’s Saber 10 – E1 event
women who entered the mixed but not the women’s 2

35% of the entries in the Crescent City are from outside the section!

So how will segregation increase any event? We have heard from multiple clubs and people that will simply choose a different event if Mixed is not offered. Not "boycotting" per say, simply choosing another tournament. Using the CCO number the total event would have a reduction of 42 entries, which equals over $600 in lost revenue!

???

Let me put another spin on this:

The organizers of this circuit want me to travel long distances pay the full amount of entry fees to fence maybe 9 other women fencers. They will most likely be the same women I see at all the other events. Why would that be worth my time and money? Is it not unfair that I would have to pay the same fees as the guys but they get more fencing? If the organizers mandate seperate events then maybe they should pro-rate the entry fees based on number of fencers.

Just a thought.

i'mnt

[R. Exnicios]

Swordmaster.

Thanks

Truce.

[dreadfoily]

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

It's not opinions that are the problems; it is the actions based on those opinions. When those actions infringe on someone's rights it is illegal.

I can think and even say that someone should be slapped and that's fine but as soon as that opinion becomes an action that's a different story.

But for litigation, women would not have the right to vote, blacks would be riding in the back of the bus, police could arrest and jail you without telling you why etc. etc.

----------------------------------------------------------
Richard, the good old boy is alive and well.....when's the last time you were on a bus, I dare you to ride them!! I rode the buses in New Orleans with the folks to the salles, please do something for those people, it's a disgrace! At night, after 10 pm, since classes couldn't start until 8:30 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I'm going back to Sisily

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by i'mnottelling

Let me put another spin on this:

The organizers of this circuit want me to travel long distances pay the full amount of entry fees to fence maybe 9 other women fencers. They will most likely be the same women I see at all the other events. Why would that be worth my time and money? Is it not unfair that I would have to pay the same fees as the guys but they get more fencing? If the organizers mandate seperate events then maybe they should pro-rate the entry fees based on number of fencers.

Just a thought.

i'mnt

Perhaps just a thought, but a common misconception and very much not true (except for one boundary condition, explained below). The average fencer in any tournament organized as a round of pools, 100% promotion to DE's will fence a pool's-worth of bouts and 2 DE bouts (the boundary conidtion is that in small tournaments (<30 people) pools tend to be pools of 5 and 6 rather than 6 and 7, so there is the possibility of losing 1 pool bout when that threshold is passed). This is true for a 60 person tournament, a 100 person tournament, a 1000 person tournament. Because each fencer is eliminated exactly once (rounding off the fact that the gold medalist is never eliminated which may be balanced by the 4th-place finisher being eliminated twice if bronze is fenced for) the number of DE bouts is the same as the number of fencers (see previous parenthetical note). Each such bout involves 2 fencers so the average fencer gets 2 DEs. Size of the tournament doesn't come into play here.

Doubling the size of a tournament does not change the number of bouts that can be expected for the AVERAGE fencer. Yes, a number of people will get an extra DE bout. But there will be twice as many people (as before) still getting only 1 and maintaining the average at 2.

Larger tournaments do NOT mean more fencing on average.

That said, if one expects to be in the top 3-4 of any tournament entered, yes, larger tournaments result in more fencing. Guess what? Very few people fall into this category (by the nature of the category). The fencers that are expected to bow out in the first round of DE's are paying the same entry fees as the A's (barring special cases such as A's with waived entry fees or even being flown in to the event) despite consuming considerably fewer resources and getting much less fencing. Don't hear much clamor to make the top fencers pay significantly more do we? (note: given my ratings I'm very glad about this fact)

I'm not coming into the broader debate on either side here. I just wanted to rebut the claims that I'mnottelling made as I've seen this kind of erroneous pseudomath too often.

-B :)

[Swordmaster]

I agree whole heartedly iouyt. There was a fencer at our sectional meeting that said HE was tired of driving hundreds of miles to tournaments only to fence 4 to 6 fencers and go home. One of the problems he stated (whether it is true or just persieved I don't know) was that he thought that organizers were opting for smaller pools in the larger mixed events so as to make time for smaller events at the end of the day. If we follow this logic, a male fencer who fences one weapon in a 5 person pool and gets to the top eight, would get to fence 5 to 7 times (depending on how he did and how many de bouts he fenced). A female fencer, who is paying to fence in two events (usually $5 to $10 more), all things being equal and the tournament having mixed and womens events, will get to fence twice as many bouts in that one weapon. This is the other main reason having mixed and womens events is un fair to all fencers.

[Inquartata]

Each fencer still gets to choose whether to pay or not, though. The decision whether it's "unfair" or not should be left up to the individual fencers, not decided for them, "for their own good", from on high. Why are you so insistent on mandating something few seem to want?

As to numbers, yes, the math wonks have discovered that you will not get to "fence more" at larger events than at a smaller one. What they do not mention is that with a large event the variety of possible opponents is far higher. If you hold a separate women's event, and shut them out of a much larger men's event, you are in effect telling them that they are only going to have the chance to fence the same handful of opponents, over and over, in every tournament. If you commonly have 8 entrants, that's the same 7 opponents you'll face every time. With a mixed event of, say, 25, though, the range of possible opponents is larger and you'll be facing at least some different ones every tournament. I have experienced this myslelf, fencing little local tournaments vs travelling to bigger ones. I get the same handful of people over and over in an 8 person pool at home, and yet in the last 5 years I've never gotten more than one person in my pool, as far as I can recall, that I faced in a previous year at the LBI, DITD or Couturier.

Variety is the spice of life and of fencing, and if you want your women fencers to improve I just don't think that consigning them to facing the same few opponents, whose styles and tricks they know and to whom theirs are as well known, every time is the way to do it. Such "inbreeding" may work at Nellya, OFA or Westbrook Foundation, but it's not necessarily very good for the vast majority of fencers.

[azfencer]

I have to restate some of what you've already read but I think bears repeating. It isn't just the number of bouts you get, it's the quality of the fencing!!! Fencing the same six women over and over again gets old very quickly, it is not a good way to get more women to come to your event or even retain women fencers in the sport. Even when there are 20 women fencers in a women's event, almost never have more than half the fencers been fencing for long enough to be very competitive.

I think the main reason having women's and mixed events is the most popular way to run a tournament is that it makes both the beginner women and more experienced women relatively happy. Both get to fence at a level they are comfortable and are more likely to continue fencing and competing. It hasn't been done all that often but I think having a mixed event and U event is almost as satisfactory (the main problem being timid girls meeting inexperienced heavy handed large men). Don't tell me that if a mixed event and a men's event were both included that very many men would fence both! Some would do it to get more fencing but many men would feel the mixed event was beneath them and only the mens event really counted.

Several years ago when Duel in the Desert was considering blocking any women from fencing mixed(mens) events, most of the female fencers from Arizona flat out promised we wouldn't be coming to the tournament if that happened. Maybe that isn't the greatest response, but it was the truth. Most fencers want the opportunity for good competition and growth, why is that so much to ask for? Different issues face larger divisions/sections than more spread out and less populated regions. When you are a smaller division and don't have all that many opportunities to fence you make the most of what you can get and being excluded from events strikes a nerve. Yes, that's what it feels like - forget that lovely notion of separate but equal which just doesn't happen!