USFA Summer National entries

[Dee EffEll]

The USFA web page is posting received entries to summer nationals. Clearly they are still updating the lists, but it seems pretty clear that the USFA is going to achieve its goal of making the event smaller. IIRC last year, D3ME and D3MF were over 300 entrants. So far this year, they are at about 200 each. Interesting that D2MF is bigger than D3 (at least so far.)

Anyone have any stats on the size of each event over the last few years?

[hpfencing]

Relivant link:
http://usfa.org/Misc/SummerEntries.asp

[davesaint]

Neither event, Div 3 ME or Div3 MF were over 300 last year. Div3ME had 236 last year. Div3MF had 296. For a difference of -43 and -91 entries respectively. Frankly it won't make much of a difference in Div3ME as they will still be using a braket of 256 for the DE's. It will likely make a big difference in Men's foil as one less round of DE's will need to be fenced. I would also imagine that there is a higher percentage of people who qualified that are going this year to Div3 as it is more "special" since you have to qualify, not just show up for your divisional qualifiers like last year.

[Mergs]

Beg to differ. Was there last year for DIVIIIMF, there were 308 signed up, 296 showed. OBTW that's only 4 shy of 300. Not 91

[oiuyt]

I assume the -91 is the delta from last year to this year (ie 205 listed on the website currently) although I haven't counted to confirm this.

Might be interesting to see how many years back you have to go before finding a D3MF event smaller than 205. Again without checking, my guess would be only a couple of years. Yeah the new qualification requirements reduce the number of people eligible, but it certainly hasn't hurt the event much. Predictions on number of years until we break 256 again?

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Okay, just checked. D2 MF was 183 competitors as recently as 2001. Actually though, that was a down year. Here's the numbers for years the USFA has listed on the website:

2003 296
2002 254
2001 183
2000 214
1999 165
1998 160
1997 141
prior to 1997 no D3 results were listed. 1997 was also the first year that the national championships were moved to July and renamed the Summer National Championships. Was there a D3 National Championships in years prior to 1997 (I had been fencing for several years at that point but not yet on the national level so I just don't know)?

-B :)

[noodle]

well, if those numbers are any indication, there's a pretty linear correlation that points to ~20 person increase a year (just looking at the numbers, no math). don't have any good information now after the restrictions, but assuming the old ones are still good, i'd say 3 years.

[davesaint]

The numbers I used were off the USFA's web site. It may have been that there were larger numbers entered, and there were no-shows, but here are the comparisons that I noted. I did not use all of the events, just the one's where my club had enteries in it.

Event 2004 2003 Differential
ME Div1a 97 117 -20
ME Div2 196 200 -4
ME Div3 193 236 -43
Team Epee 43 38 +5
WE Div1a 77 72 +5
WF Div3 189 197 -8
MF Div1a 111 106 +5
MF Div3 204 295 -91

Of course the 2004 numbers will fluctuate as the events get closer.

[edew]

~20 fencers per year growth is nothing. I expect an exponential growth, heading to about 40 to 60 fencers increase within two years (in the D2 or D3 MF or ME).

There are about 55 divisions. All that's needed is one additional fencer from each division to qualify, which means four additional fencers to attend. In many cases, given that not everyone who qualify attends, it might not even need additional fencers attending. All that is needed is a desirable venue (can everyone say Hawaii?).

USFA really has to look at the format and the administrative structure of the organization and see what they need to do as they move forward. It's not practical nor considerate of the fencers to be holding competitions with 400-500 competitors. For that number, the average fencer will still have 6 pool bouts and 1.2 or so DE bouts. The logistics become a pain to the bout committee and the FOC. The benefits to the fencers are minimal.

I would like to see a four-year program where fencers do well in their regions for four years and then on the fourth year, compete in some Nationals. There can still be annual national "championships" events, but a different type for each of the four years.

It's either that or some really nasty, brutal elimination process that requires some serious high results at the local or regional level. Given that most fencers are still battling out as recreational fencers, I see a tough qualifying process as being too draconian and could shrink the number of USFA members back down to the 12-13K size. While that number might be pleasant and manageable, it's not a long-term desirable goal.

Having a four-year program might keep a lot of fencers in the loop, at least for the four years, which will maintain the numbers better.

[Craig]

USFA really has to look at the format and the administrative structure of the organization and see what they need to do as they move forward. It's not practical nor considerate of the fencers to be holding competitions with 400-500 competitors. For that number, the average fencer will still have 6 pool bouts and 1.2 or so DE bouts. The logistics become a pain to the bout committee and the FOC. The benefits to the fencers are minimal.

Yes, but the bragging rights on winning a 400 entry tournament!

[edew]

If it were done with multiple pools to DE at 32 with repechage. Then you can brag. Or, if they did a huge round-robin. Uh, maybe not.

[Rolls]

I would like to see a four-year program where fencers do well in their regions for four years and then on the fourth year, compete in some Nationals. There can still be annual national "championships" events, but a different type for each of the four years.

It's either that or some really nasty, brutal elimination process that requires some serious high results at the local or regional level.

I think there is another option. Add more divisions (Div I, II, III, IV, V). Make larger differneces betwen the divisions. The fact is that many local and regional areas don't have much fencing. So, the national competitions are theonly options from fences in such areas. So, having more divisions would help decrease the size of the national competitions while still allowing everyone to participate. In fact, having more divisions could even increase the competitiveness in each division (less skill diferation inside of each division, more skill diferation between dvisions).

Just a thought

Rolls.

[fluidfencer]

I was going to ask Eric about the possibility of more "regionalization". I think its a good idea. I guess there is the fear that if too many people get knocked out at the Division/Region level and never get to fence at a national level, you will discourage people and hurt growth. I know we are still struggling with the Regional Youth Circuit but I believe it is necessary for growth.

At the same time, don't most other sports qualify through regional competition? I am familiar with swimming but that comparison doesn't fit. I would like to hear from someone about comparable individual sports like tennis or karate... where results are not so strictly time- or point-based (I know we all use points for national standings).

I think there is another option. Add more divisions (Div I, II, III, IV, V). Make larger differneces betwen the divisions. The fact is that many local and regional areas don't have much fencing. So, the national competitions are theonly options from fences in such areas. So, having more divisions would help decrease the size of the national competitions while still allowing everyone to participate. In fact, having more divisions could even increase the competitiveness in each division (less skill diferation inside of each division, more skill diferation between dvisions).

Just a thought

Rolls.

[Schiavona]

I think there is another option. Add more divisions (Div I, II, III, IV, V). Make larger differneces betwen the divisions. The fact is that many local and regional areas don't have much fencing. So, the national competitions are theonly options from fences in such areas. So, having more divisions would help decrease the size of the national competitions while still allowing everyone to participate. In fact, having more divisions could even increase the competitiveness in each division (less skill diferation inside of each division, more skill diferation between dvisions).

Just a thought

Rolls.

Years ago, before the Div II-III Nationals came about, a friend of mine talked about how if the USFA would adopt a championship model like that of racketball there would be an increase in our membership. Racketball(at least back then) has a national championship at every level of their rankings. So, we expand the Nationals and BAM! we have about 10,000 more members 7 years later. Do we really want to go back to quailfying people through Sectionals? Or do we want to keep running forward and increase the membership?

I agree with Rolls idea let's have a national championship in U, E, D, C and B. Will this be hard? Of course, but it is 'only' a matter of logistics. Have the Summer Nationals run over the course of a month. Wouldn't that make a sweeter prospect for a venue owner? Few people might be able to stay the whole month, but people would come and go.

[Schiavona]

I was going to ask Eric about the possibility of more "regionalization". I think its a good idea. I guess there is the fear that if too many people get knocked out at the Division/Region level and never get to fence at a national level, you will discourage people and hurt growth. I know we are still struggling with the Regional Youth Circuit but I believe it is necessary for growth.

At the same time, don't most other sports qualify through regional competition? I am familiar with swimming but that comparison doesn't fit. I would like to hear from someone about comparable individual sports like tennis or karate... where results are not so strictly time- or point-based (I know we all use points for national standings).

All I know is that under the old qualifying through the Sections few people I knew ever ended up at Nationals. With the advent of Div II-III people started competiting more. Going to Nationals and loosing is quite a different thing from going to Sectionals and loosing. I believe that the Regional Youth Circuits are necessary because in many parts of the country there aren't many youth events that aren't 'afterthoughts' to some Senior event.

In much of the country the Divisions do cover 'regions' and have few fencers. Summer Nationals gives these people a bigger vision of what fencing is.

[Schiavona]

I would like to see a four-year program where fencers do well in their regions for four years and then on the fourth year, compete in some Nationals. There can still be annual national "championships" events, but a different type for each of the four years.

It's either that or some really nasty, brutal elimination process that requires some serious high results at the local or regional level. Given that most fencers are still battling out as recreational fencers, I see a tough qualifying process as being too draconian and could shrink the number of USFA members back down to the 12-13K size. While that number might be pleasant and manageable, it's not a long-term desirable goal.

Having a four-year program might keep a lot of fencers in the loop, at least for the four years, which will maintain the numbers better.

I live in a marginal fencing division. All I see this 4 year idea doing is pushing us back to the days of when no one bothered to leave the state, since it really wasn't worth it. I can see this as being very different in places such as California, Texas and the East coast were a fencer dosen't have to bust a hump to find quality tournaments. They may not know it, but everyone in my division is a recreational fencer. At least with the ablity to go to Summer Nationals they can get a taste of what a large tournament is like and how things are done nationally. The advent of the Div II & III Nationals was like a shot in the arm for my division competition-wise. I just see reductions of the Summer Nationals as hurting my division. Maybe the USFA should cut us and other marginal divisions loose and concentrate on the higher population centers, I don't know. All I know is that the expansion of Nationals has helped my division, so I am led to believe that a further expansion, a la Rolls idea, would help us more.

BTW, I really like the Hawaii idea!

[oiuyt]

Of course, but it is 'only' a matter of logistics. Have the Summer Nationals run over the course of a month. Wouldn't that make a sweeter prospect for a venue owner? Few people might be able to stay the whole month, but people would come and go.

We're just 3 weeks away and the USFA is still trying to fully staff a week-long event. Good luck finding enough qualified referees, armory staff, bout committee, etc. for an entire month.

-B :)

[Schiavona]

Did I say in my post that it would be hard? Yes I did. The 'only' was to denote sarcasm. I know that this is most likely beyond the ablities of the USFA as they are now. I really don't know how the people who run the Summer Nationals organize it. What if instead of organizing the WHOLE Summer Nationals, each rank Division(i.e. Div I, II, III etc) had a group running it almost as an insular tournament? Would that help? So you'd have five 6-weapon Senior tournaments, as well as the Youth events, at the same venue over a period of a month. This would most likely be harder on an indivual who qualified in more than on Div, but MIGHT allow more fencers to attend overall. I just see, "It's too big! Let's reduce it!" as the path to a slow death for fencing in this country.

[Artisan]

Regardless of local fencing quality and exposure to better fencers, Summer Nationals provides a goal, something to train for, an annual benchmark of performance - and very importantly marks the end of one season and beginning of the next; all of which are essential aspects of participation in sport. While I agree that as a "championship" there needs to be some level of qualification to get there, I also feel that as many people as possible should be encouraged and qualified to attend.

Last summer I went to Austin for Summer Nats for the first time, and it was my first year fencing. It was hugely inspiring and educational. I got to see and understand much more about the sport than I ever would have in several seasons of division / sectional competition, and as a veteran who was able to find some points in the standings, it was a big motivator to invest in and attend other national competitions this season. This put the fire in me to train more, compete more, and ultimately spend more time and money on fencing locally and nationally. More blades & equipment - more lessons - more entry fees. All part of growth.

Like any industry, sport, hobby or past time, there is a huge benefit to holding a massive national once a year event to serve as the annual "trade show" for the field. It helps create and define the identity of the endeavor, unifies and disseminates the knowledge and experience, and brings people together.

I think its unfortunate that USFA has scaled down the size of DIV 2 & 3, rather than developing an alternative way of making the size of the field managable. Why not hold an E and under or "rookie year" championship? If it adds a day to the venue and can pay for itself with enough entries, fencing as a whole and USFA stand only to benefit. USFA should not be afarid of or discourage growth - it should embrace it and invest in it, and the Summer Nationals seem to be one of the most direct means to attract and develop the entire range of fencers and fencing.

[mlr2fence]

A much simpler way to control the numbers is to limit the number of events a fencer is allowed to compete in. If a fencer was allowed to compete in only 2-3 events instead of unlimited, as it is now, (providing they have qualified) then a greater number of fencers could compete instead a few number fencing more events. This would allow more fencers to strive for Nationals but yet not increase the overall number of bouts, until, of course fencing grows to the popularity it enjoys in Europe. With this one can also 'tweak' the Divisions i.e. limit Div 2 to C & D rated fencers. In my opinion, fencing more than 3 events leads to burnout. One can identify the fencers trying to fence multiple events by their glazed over eyes.