Expanding Summer Nationals and Manpower

[mtarascio]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In the bad old days, you qualified at the division level to go to Sectionals and if you qualified at Sectionals, you went to Nationals.

I have been involved with fencing since 1961. Since that time one has always been able to qualify for the Nationals through the Division Today, in order to qualify for Division 1 Nationals one needs to have National points.

I believe i am in the miniority because I feel Summer Nationals are too big. I do not believe we should have Youth 10 and 12 events.

Summer Nationals are great. However to add more events such as Division 4, 5, 6 etc would just add to the mediocrity of fencing and refereeing we currently have at the Summer Nationals. Many of the fencers competing at Summer Nationals are beginners who would be better served working on improving their fencing with their coach and competing in their local area. Many of the referees that will be at the Summer Nationals just do not belong there.

[neevel]

I started fencing in the late 70's, AFLA/USFA membership was around 6,000-7,000. A couple of years before the advent of Div II/III membership was around 8,000+. So, in, what 6 years?, the membership jumps to 17,000. All I can really point to as an explaination is the expanded Summer Nationals. Being an empirical kind of guy, I say go with what works.

A far more likely cause is the influx of coaches from the former East Bloc over the last 15 years, which greatly expanded the access that people have to baseline competent coaching. 20 years ago, away from the top-10 metropolitan areas you didn't have many solid coaches, whereas now you can find excellent coaches in places as small as Salina, Kansas.

[mlr2fence]

I like the idea of having opportunities for the less-than-elite fencer to attend competitions at the National level. The more, the merrier in my book. I do think that having that opportunity, along with solid support of youth programs, is vital to the growth and viability of the sport. There are ways it can be done. I think that a good multi-tier format is one way, another is qualifying thru NACs. Instead of just divisions and Sectionals, lets have another grouping in there--several divisions form a region, several regions form the current sectionals. Allow qualifying at the various levels: winner at divisonals qualifies, top X% at Regionals qualifies, and top X % at sectionals qualify. The current sectionals are large, geographically, and difficult for many fencers to travel to for a whole weekend. For many that means flying. Allowing a fencer to qualify at various steps mean that the potential exists to save $$. Also provides stuctured goals for beginners: Attend divisionals first year, expanding to regionals following year, etc. Many fencers are able to afford only one big tournament so let that be nationals, during the summer, when the whole family can go and make it their vacation (the old killing two birds with one stone) .

[achilleus]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In the bad old days, you qualified at the division level to go to Sectionals and if you qualified at Sectionals, you went to Nationals.

Under this system we really saw no growth. I guess I can't get over how much things have grown over the last 5 years. I went to Nationals in 1997, there were 1500 entrants and it was the biggest tournament in the USFA's history. I've been away from fencing since then. Now I understand that last year's Nationals had 4,000 entrants. I took a look at the latest membership report and saw that the USFA was 17,000 strong. This is after watching an increase of 2,000 over 18 years. I find this all very exciting. I also understand the impulse to slow things down. Sudden growth and change is painful and scary, but to retreat from it is the wrong impulse. Must be the epeeist in me.

Who said "Don't fear change"?

I'm not suggesting a return to the format you describe.

Take a look a the regional youth circuits. Something along those lines would be better for up and coming fencers, rec fencers, and local fencers to spend less $ on travel and still get strong tournaments. The culmination of the season would still be Summer Nationals.

But this would provided more opportunities for the Div 1A/2/3 fencers to get experience at larger events. It would also provide for those fencers who don't have the $ to travel to national events but are still looking for quality events to go to.

Take a look at the Pacific Coast Section Circuits. Strong, regional events and everybody returns from these events with positive experiences. They are well run, fun, and provide some great fencing for all...

[fluidfencer]

The USFA is going through the same types of growing pains that any other organization or club does. Our club is going through a ton of "firsts" as we move beyond everything being handled by a small group, to a club that requires many more hands to make things work. It also means spitting up functions, so coachces can coach, and the key people can development strategy while making sure everyone is doing their assigned tasks.

I have tried to use the swimming example, but that sport is so easy to measure because it all relates to time standards. Somebody mentioned tennis in another thread. They have a strong regional organization. Points are assigned to qualifying tournaments. You qualify (this is from their web site) through District / Sectional / National events based on your standings. It is a progressive system, it's objective, and points are assigned based on the size/quality of the tournament.

How crazy is it that until very recently, just about anybody could go to a national fencing tournament (still pretty darned easy to get there)? There are plenty of good local (some locals are very big) tournaments to provide fencing experience for all levels of fencers. Look... this is sport. Once the numbers start getting bigger, you have to put a system in place that matches skill levels. There is a reason why every sport I can think of has a similar qualifying approach. Example: If my daughter is 14, this year she could have qualified for a USFA national tournament through Divisionals OR Sectionals OR just attending an RYC. She could fence poorly and go to a NATIONAL tournament for goodness sake!!!

The USFA is working on the problem, and it will take a number of years, but I think it's pretty obvious where things are going.

Last point... I see the booming Summer Nationals attendance as a RESULT of increased USFA membership, not the cause. The cause is what is being done at the club level, and that is solely the result of individuals working their tails off. And this is possible partly due to the influx (already mentioned) of qualified coaches (plus newer USA-raised coaches that they have trained).

So hang on... the next several years will be eventful

[dekko]

Food for thought.....

I disagree with any idea that will limit the number of fencers at the National Championships. I do agree with qualifications paths but limiting the % to 25% this year as was done seems like a knee jerk reaction to the size of the D3MF event this past year. I do understand the resources needed to run an eent of that size and it did seem to be handled incorrectly last year. Eight strips were used with 8-16 refs for the entire bracket. It would have seemed to use all 50 strips and refs for a short period of time would have prevented that event from running until 10pm or later last year. Once that event was down to the 64 then put it on eight strips and let it run itself.

Last year's venue had just under 130K square feet of space with just over 2500 fencers. Now imagine a nationals with 5,000 - 10,000 - 20,000 fencers. About twice the space would be needed and 2 different BC/TC/FOC tables(areas) needed to run each side of the room. Or, having two different rooms of 150K sqft to handle all the events and people. Now we're having fun. Now we see who can really run a big time tournament. Start to count the number of refs, aroumrers, BC, TC, FOC, strips, etc needed for that event. Now to have some real fun, which room, or area of the room, will the vendors set-up in or do they have 2 set-ups for each side or room? Also, do we need more days or is 9 enough?

I do not have a problem splitting off the olympic wannabes into their own event at a different time/venue/city. Keeping those events for the point holders is a good idea but we are talking about the summer event. This one is supposed to be for fun, not the 'real' nationals, let the rec fencers beat the hell out of each other. Right? Seems as though the exact opposite is trying to happen.

The idea of making the number of qualifiers dependent on the number of refs/amrourers they send is very interesting. I am not sure the record keeping could be done. Too many questions to answer. However, making the number tied to the number of refs sent to events through out the year then informing each division how many they can send... Still difficult record keeping, too difficult. Too many problems to work out and too many questions to answer.

Two cents time, allow D3 event to qualify everyone who has the ratings and fences divisionals or sections qualify but have a 30% or so cut from pools to DE's. Have D1A, D2, and all the others they way they were last year with cuts from pools to DE's. Or, do not allow any fencer to the DE who didn't win at least 2 bouts. Change the D1 catagory to just point holders, no automatics from other D1A or D2 events. I understand the reasoning for the auto qual's but there really isn't any good use for this path.

I do like the idea of 10k plus people at nationals but many things would change and we may not like all the changes.

Enjoy!

[Repechage]

I don't honestly get the point of having a huge national event which must include events for every level, even unranked fencers. Division III is already horrifying enough to watch as it is. I realize it's nice for all the fencers to get together once a year and all, but Summer Nationals is already a circus and a pain to manage.

Events like the Pomme de Terre, which has open and unranked categories, work pretty well. If you want a fun time, do something like that. If you want to qualify for national competition, train and qualify.

[Schiavona]

Food for thought.....


I do not have a problem splitting off the olympic wannabes into their own event at a different time/venue/city. Keeping those events for the point holders is a good idea but we are talking about the summer event. This one is supposed to be for fun, not the 'real' nationals, let the rec fencers beat the hell out of each other. Right? Seems as though the exact opposite is trying to happen.

The idea of making the number of qualifiers dependent on the number of refs/amrourers they send is very interesting. I am not sure the record keeping could be done. Too many questions to answer. However, making the number tied to the number of refs sent to events through out the year then informing each division how many they can send... Still difficult record keeping, too difficult. Too many problems to work out and too many questions to answer.

Two cents time, allow D3 event to qualify everyone who has the ratings and fences divisionals or sections qualify but have a 30% or so cut from pools to DE's. Have D1A, D2, and all the others they way they were last year with cuts from pools to DE's. Or, do not allow any fencer to the DE who didn't win at least 2 bouts. Change the D1 catagory to just point holders, no automatics from other D1A or D2 events. I understand the reasoning for the auto qual's but there really isn't any good use for this path.

I do like the idea of 10k plus people at nationals but many things would change and we may not like all the changes.

Enjoy!

First off, thanks to everybody for their posts!

I understood Summer Nationals to be a "fun event" also. At least that's the way it seemed when they split the single Nationals into Division I and Division II. The 'serious fencers' had their own tournament(which at first they wined "where are all the people?", go figure) and the rest of us had Div II. So who really cares if the fencing and refereeing isn't the best. For many of us in the 'smaller' areas, going to a tournament with thousands of fencers can be a life changing expirence. I can't speak for the other areas of the country that have events like the Pomme de Terre(of which I'm somewhat envious) or the Pacific Coast Circuit, because I and many of the fencers in the country DON'T LIVE THERE.

Record keeping shouldn't be hard. I can go to the USFA website and see how many people are going to Nationals from my division.

Getting back to the original intent of this thread.................getting the divisions more involved(read required) in producing referees. The negitive incentive or 'stick' is tying the number of fencers going to Nationals to how many refs from a division go. I guess the 'carrot' is a little too vague for some divisions-rated refs in the division. I'm being selfish. I don't think that without the 'stick' my division will keep a referee training program running.

[Schiavona]

Last point... I see the booming Summer Nationals attendance as a RESULT of increased USFA membership, not the cause. The cause is what is being done at the club level, and that is solely the result of individuals working their tails off. And this is possible partly due to the influx (already mentioned) of qualified coaches (plus newer USA-raised coaches that they have trained).

So hang on... the next several years will be eventful

I cannot judge the efects of the influx of coaches other than to say it's got to be a good thing. For many years 'we' all 'knew' there were many, many fencers who were not and never intended to join the USFA. There was a rumor that some one had done an estimate of the # of fencers based on the amount of equiment sold in this country. They supposed to have come up with a number above 100,000. In another thread, someone was talking about a club in Virginia that claimed 800 members, with few being members of the USFA. If you look at the membership reports the vast majority of members are Unranked. It would be interesting if we could ask these people why they joined the USFA, was it Summer Nationals or their coach? Or both? My division is following the bad old pattern with more people not belonging to the USFA("What does the USFA do for me?" ).

[millebournes]

Right now I think there should be a push to increase the size of summer nationals and NAC's. Regional events are fine but they just don't have the clout that Summer Nationals have.

The total number of fencers attending national tournament should increase until the total membership base is may 30k. Increasing the number of divisions as the number of fencers increases would be a good way to merge the new fencers in and to encourage future growth. Then as the membership becomes a decent size let the regions take over the the div 3, div 4, div 18 tournaments.

Why shouldn't beginners fence at nationals? With such a small number of fencers in the country if they don't fence other people from other regions of the country they risk inbreeding. I think increasing summer national attendence can help the sport grow and increase the number of fencers.

If you have an exciting summer nationals experience- you have excited fencers. You want excited fencers because enthusiasm is catching. Think about things like seeing higher level fencer, lots of vendors (the average fencer can't pop into wally world on their way home from work/school and pick up a plasteron), meeting other fencers other than the average 7 you fence with at the club. It's not whether you win or loose-its whether you can get a target speed t-shirt-- That kind of thing. I'm not saying that the competitive part of the tournament isn't important, I'm just saying that when the fencers at the club I attend talk about their experiences at a national event it encourages other fencers to stick with the sport and take a shot at attending nationals because they want some of those same experiences. Experiences they can't have at a local or even regional level. Experiences that should be available to them, but aren't, because there simply aren't enough fencers in their area.

[Inquartata]

I guess what I would like to see is the USFA making it manditory for the divisions to have and MAINTAIN a referee training program.

I would have to object to this on the grounds that it would discriminate against some Divisions.

It is all very well to be from a "small" Division, as long as it's in a region where there's planty of fencing, lots of good tournaments and direc--er, referees in adjacent or nearby Divisions. It is then no hardship for people to go and get observed, or to take the test, or to take a seminar. Live in the Colorado Division? Great, the USFA National Office is in your back yard. Live in the Southern California Division? There're lots of people living there who are qualified to give the tests and observe for ratings. Ditto New Jersey, or Illinois. But in some sparsely populated Western Divisions, like Utah-Southern Idaho, or Nevada, or Arizona, or the Dakotas, doing this IS a hardship. It mandates flying or extemely long drives, hotel stays, and so forth, to go somewhere to take a class or get tested and observed---or paying someone to come in to provide the services. And the USFA is supposed to FORCE my Division either to pay these expenses, or force it to force its members to do so? While other Divisions, in more favorable circumstances, are effectively exempted from said expenses?

There's already a disparity in the distribution of resources in fencing depending on where you live. Let's not institutionalize them. I don't have the solution to the problem you're trying to solve, but I do think that this isn't it.

[Inquartata]

I tend to agree with the position that downsizing Nationals simply because the USFA is beginning to find the numbers of participants unwieldy to manage is a poor idea. There is a tacit contradiction between the USFA's expressed wish to expand membership and promote fencing and its simultaneous tendency to want to shut substantial numbers of fencers out of its biggest event. In fact I am tempted to say to them "You wanted to expand fencing, and you were successful. Now deal with it."

Nationals, and indeed fencing itself, is supposed to be about the fencers. The emphasis should be on the fencers and what is best for them, not on reducing the inconvenience to the organizers or the national and local officers and administrators who, after all, chose to accept the responsibilities or stood for election to the positions. There have to be better ways to manage increasing entries than simply excluding people who want to go and are willing to pay their own way to do so.

[dberke]

I fall in the camp that thinks the more people present at Nationls, the better. I remember going to my first Nationals 8 months after I started fencing. It was thrilling. Sure, I got my butt kicked, but it really got me jazzed and excited about the sport. As others have mentioned, I think that is a very valuable experience for all fencers, especially the more recreational ones.

The USFA's solution of making the qualification path tougher is a poor solution at best. Looking at the numbers on the USFA site, it sure doesn't appear that the numbers have dropped significantly (maybe 20%?) At the rate of growth we've seen, next year the numbers will be huge once again, which presents the USFA with the same problem they claimed that the new qualification path would solve. Then what? It's time for the USFA to figure out a way to efficiently run big events.

As far as alternative solutions, however, I do think there is a good compromise. This year we (speaking as a division officer) were required to run RYC events in our region. I would propose that the "regions" (or better yet, each section) be required to hold several regional circuit events (perhaps Div II, III, and open events). (I personally would dump the RYCs in favor of this, the kids already get far more national events than the average adult fencer.) Then, as they did for some of the RYC events, require that fencers attend at least 1 or 2 regional events to be eligible to fence at Nationals. Maybe use some kind of points system or other cutoff as part of the qualifier for Nationals, but only if absolutely necessary.

It seems like the USFA should take advantage of the growing number of large regional tournaments that the various sections/divisions have been organizing (Duel in the Desert, PdT, etc.) By making these events qualifiers for Nationals, it encourages continued growth of those events.

Dan

[Schiavona]

I would have to object to this on the grounds that it would discriminate against some Divisions.

It is all very well to be from a "small" Division, as long as it's in a region where there's planty of fencing, lots of good tournaments and direc--er, referees in adjacent or nearby Divisions. It is then no hardship for people to go and get observed, or to take the test, or to take a seminar. Live in the Colorado Division? Great, the USFA National Office is in your back yard. Live in the Southern California Division? There're lots of people living there who are qualified to give the tests and observe for ratings. Ditto New Jersey, or Illinois. But in some sparsely populated Western Divisions, like Utah-Southern Idaho, or Nevada, or Arizona, or the Dakotas, doing this IS a hardship. It mandates flying or extemely long drives, hotel stays, and so forth, to go somewhere to take a class or get tested and observed---or paying someone to come in to provide the services. And the USFA is supposed to FORCE my Division either to pay these expenses, or force it to force its members to do so? While other Divisions, in more favorable circumstances, are effectively exempted from said expenses?

There's already a disparity in the distribution of resources in fencing depending on where you live. Let's not institutionalize them. I don't have the solution to the problem you're trying to solve, but I do think that this isn't it.

Gee, I didn't realize this....... The only advantage where I live has over Hawaii(fencing wise) is that we CAN drive to other states. Of course, it takes us days and we have to go through an entire country.........

We have to do the things you brought up NOW. We've been looking into USFA's clinic program. It looks good, EXCEPT if we have a refree clinic we can't get a Referee rating from it. Go figure. I was hoping that it wouldn't be an unfunded mandate. The USFA directed the Sections to make an FOC tester available at Sectionals. Our Section asked for a waiver this year as paying for a FOC tester's way to Alaska was too expensive. Like it isn't expensive for us, like we don't less resources(money) than the Section. At one time the divisions could test and grant ref ratings(9 & 10) no more. So now the FOC is FORCING our division or it's members to spend money in order to get referees. Aren't we supposed to have referees? Where's the LOVE?

[dreadfoily]

On another thread I argued for the expansion, rather than the shrinking of Summer Nationals. I still believe that the expansion of the Nationals has resulted in the huge growth in USFA membership in recent years. I don't have any hard evidence for this, just a couple of decades of observation.

I would like to see the Summer Nationals expanded further to include a Division for every ranking, including Unranked. When I brought this up in the other thread there were several objections, the most salient of which was the lack of referees. So, here is my idea; the USFA adopt something along the lines of what the FIE does for the World Cup events, namely require the indivual divisions to make referees availible for Summer Nationals according to how many people a division sends to Nationals.

No, I don't know who will pay for this.

Yes, I know that the USFA needs to do more to help some Divisions produce more referees.

I don't see anything to keep the USFA from requiring help from it's member divisions. My division doesn't have a referee training program, we did at one time, but the division leadership let it fade away. Intertwining producing referees and competiting at Nationals gives the divisions a very strong incentive to keep producing referees. Connecting the number of entrants with the number of referees sent should help, if not cure, the shortage in referees at Nationals.

So, what do you think?

Increasing the number of people who join an organization, doesn't necessarily mean an organization will become better, it just means that the organization will gather more memberships and dues. What are the results of US fencers in the olympics? If it weren't important to be in the olympics, then why all the training? And of the thousands of fencers in the nation, how many even come close to elite training opportunities.

It may be better to have more divisions than present. And, also along with your several years of observations, didn't a person have to qualify under more stringent circumstances than before?

Keeping it open as it is invites many people from "all over the world!!!" keeping this in mind, how will it help U.S. fencing, unless there is a basic plan by the leadship to include more training opportunities so that our teams do better in international competitions.

[Allen Evans]

"It looks good, EXCEPT if we have a refree clinic we can't get a Referee rating from it. "

-post by Schiavona

I was under the impression - having gotten my referee rating at a referee clinic put on by a member of the FOC - that this was the ONLY way to get an initial referee rating.

[Schiavona]

"It looks good, EXCEPT if we have a refree clinic we can't get a Referee rating from it. "

-post by Schiavona

I was under the impression - having gotten my referee rating at a referee clinic put on by a member of the FOC - that this was the ONLY way to get an initial referee rating.

Hi Allen

I was refering to the neat clinic program the USFA is offering. Marshall told us about at Sectionals. Roughly, if you come up with $100 the USFA will send somebody to hold a clinic in fencing, coaching or refereeing, but it's not a testing officer of the FOC.

John

[noodle]

"It looks good, EXCEPT if we have a refree clinic we can't get a Referee rating from it. "

-post by Schiavona

I was under the impression - having gotten my referee rating at a referee clinic put on by a member of the FOC - that this was the ONLY way to get an initial referee rating.

well, theoretically both are correct. i mean, i could give a referee clinic, but nobody'd get any ratings from it. if the clinic is given by one of <a href="http://www.fencingofficials.org/Examiners/FOCXaminers.htm" target="_blank">these</a> people and then the exam is subsequently given (and you pass it), you can get your initial rating.

[Schiavona]

Increasing the number of people who join an organization, doesn't necessarily mean an organization will become better, it just means that the organization will gather more memberships and dues. What are the results of US fencers in the olympics? If it weren't important to be in the olympics, then why all the training? And of the thousands of fencers in the nation, how many even come close to elite training opportunities.

The idea is the more people you have fencing/competiting the larger the 'pool' from which to draw the top fencers. Did we send people to the Olympics in 1976 who were in the top ten on the WC points list? Did we send 14 fencers that year? The top 1% of 7,000 is 70, the top 1% of 17,000 is 170. The chances of getting better fencers increases when the popluation of fencers increases.

[fence1848]

It seems like most people are against requiring that divisions send referees and I can certainly understand why. I do think that giving divisions a positive incentive to develop referees is a good idea, though.

There are plenty of people willing to take a course to become a referee, but there is a lack of people certified to give the test and give a clinic. I also know that some people giving the tests are NOT giving the clinic that is supposed to accompany it. Unfortunately, there are referees out there getting ratings who have not had the benefit of one of these clinics, and you can usually tell when you see them referee.