Rumor or Truth?

[edew]

Seems as though travel is the biggest concern. If they allowed every division to hold one and not limit each section to 4 RYC's this would allow more of them and prevent the very problem that seems to be developing. Also just curious, how is regionalization differents from sections? Seems to be the same thing with a different name. I understand having an event geographically useful to the most people but then it eliminates so many others. "You are not going to sell many red ones if you offer none to sell" Having these events spread out over every where seems to be a better option. In the Mid Atlantic section example, if the RYCs mostly happen in Jersey then you will see lower %'s from other areas but if you have one in Pittsburg then the Jersey %'s will go down and the WV %'s will go up, not a big stretch in thinking.

It was mentioned about the SE Section, there was a sectionals in Miami and many of us did have to fly. Even people in Florida had to fly. I am not sure but I suspect we have the largest section geographically in the USFA. We had 4 RYCs this year, 2 in NC, 2 in Florida, 1 in Alabama. The 2 in NC were in September and March. Why didn't Virginia, SC, W Tenn, Georgia have RYCs? No interest, lacking ability(I doubt it), didn't care? The March ecent had kids from lots of places including NYC.

Lastly, let's not forget the fencers we are talking about, mainly Y10 and Y12 kids. Parents are going to be less likey to travel very far and spend the time and money for that trip for a 9 year old kid who likes to 'swordfight'. The easuier it is on the parents to make this happen, especially at this age, the easier it will be to keep these kids in the sport longer. If we have to tell a parent you have to travel 3-4 or more hours just so your kid can fence in an event where the outcome doesn't matter just to fence in nationals, that is a tough sell for most parents. Having more of these in more places should be the goal here, not localizing these to a certain area cased on 'who is in charge'.

Good luck, we will all need it.

Maybe I'm too long-winded for people to read my posts. The benefits of regionalization is that one is not stuck with a statically defined geographical boundary that may become obsolete within two years. New clubs grow and existing clubs die. Their appearance and disappearance changes the local structure and "center of gravity" of the fencing community. Sections and divisions can't change their "center of gravity" as quickly and what ultimately happens is that the center of local fencing does not correspond to the political center. Then, there's a disconnect (and discord) among the fencers.

Regionalization will allow the critical mass of fencers to define their location on a year-to-year basis. As other clubs spring up, if there's room within that region, they can join in. When there's too many clubs somewhere else, they can form their own region.

There isn't any definition or procedure to describe how a region comes into being. At the moment, when enough clubs email Wendell that they want to hold a series of youth events, and Wendell agrees, then boom, there's a region.

The only possible (and that's only a hypothetical) drawback to regionalization is the lack of ability of one group of fencers to compare themselves against another group. That requires a national level competition, and the Summer Nationals and the several NACs are there to provide that testing ground. I personally don't think one's skills can improve in any measurable way by having one or two opportunities to fence someone else from another area or region. Dedicated diligent work with good coaches, plenty of sparring and competitive experience - even against the same group of people for the most part - will probably provide more than enough training for when the fencers meet.

As one evidence of this, consider some European fencers who fence nowhere else other than their country, or even their state/province/region. Some of those come over to the US for schooling or whatever and fence in our events. They do well. But they certainly didn't do well because they get lots of cross-opponent training. They do well because they had good fundamental training at home.

Thus, train well, do your best at your regional competitions, and you'll probably do well elsewhere.

In the parallel thread concerning Western PA and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic section, here's a clear case of why regionalization would work better. Western PA is closer to Ohio than Philadelphia. Thus, Western PA should really compete along with Cleveland (an hour's drive), Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville KY, and several neighboring fencing clusters. West Virginia might also consider joining that cluster. Regionalization would completely fix the problem of Pittsburghians having to drive to Teaneck or vice-versa, and still offer good competitive opportunities for all.

Both groups benefit, except at the present, the main obstacle is an obsolete arbitrarily defined boundary requiring Western PA to be part of the mid-Atlantic section. Regionalization will eliminate that obstacle.

[Schiavona]

I am not sure but I suspect we have the largest section geographically in the USFA.

Geographically speaking, the Pacific Northwest Section contains more than 50% of the land mass of the entire United States(in square miles)

[fluidfencer]

I guess I need to comment.

Thanks to Eric for providing more information on RYCs and the idea of regionalization, along with several others.

The Southeast is an interesting example. I am the SE RYC coordinator (very unpaid) and have been for the past two years. There are pockets of outstanding fencing (someone from our club took the Y14 MF gold medal at the Atlanta YNAC) around the Southeast, with areas like Atlanta having several good clubs. The region is relatively very young (our club is basically five years old) and we don't flinch at driving more than six hours to a tournament (we had more than one driving up to 10 hours for our RYC).

This will have to change. The frustrating part at this point is that everything relies on volunteers to make it work, and the most dedicated volunteers are already working hard for their club and/or division... but most of you know that already. Getting people throughout the region educated and on board takes time. I think clubs in the SE know about RYCs after two years, so now we have to juggle next year's schedule to make it fair for clubs that can be 1,000 miles apart. That means that someone has to find out who is capable and willing, and decide how many RYCs we need to make it fair. The USFA provides guidance, but that number might be more or less than the four per region mentioned earlier. The regional coordinator has to make that decision based on the circumstances. That puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of people like me. I buffer that by trying to develop good communication with the clubs, and asking for advice/feedback.

The concept of regionalization is the right one, but I don't know what form it will take. Look at tennis as a guide. They have districts (something like a division), then sections but there are many more of them... 26 I believe. That seems like a more managable number for someone like me to coordinate. Other sports work that way as well. It "sounds" like our divisions and sections, but it is not. They also assign points to qualifying tournaments and you earn points to move up to the next level. This will require more management (don't confuse that with bureaucracy) but we are just barely to the point of being able to do that with only 18,000 or so members. This is an exciting time.

Man... I am afraid to tell my wife the amount of work that is coming if we (the USFA and all hard-working volunteers) are going to change things for the better. Eric paints a pretty accurate picture for just one small part of the country. I don't think that anyone will be paid anything but expenses for a very long time, and the USFA couldn't afford to pay anything remotely like a reasonable amount considering the time involved.

I know that there is a lot of unknowns at this point, but try not to listen to rumors unless you know the source.

[Dan H]

In the parallel thread concerning Western PA and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic section, here's a clear case of why regionalization would work better. Western PA is closer to Ohio than Philadelphia. Thus, Western PA should really compete along with Cleveland (an hour's drive), Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville KY, and several neighboring fencing clusters. West Virginia might also consider joining that cluster. Regionalization would completely fix the problem of Pittsburghians having to drive to Teaneck or vice-versa, and still offer good competitive opportunities for all.

Pittsburgh is 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland, 3 1/2 from Harrisburg, 4 1/2 from Baltimore or D.C., 5 from Philly, and 6 1/2 from New York City (and Teaneck). Columbus is 3 hours away, Detroit 5, Cincinnati 5, Louisville 6 1/2, and Chicago 7 1/2. We do about as well, travel-distance wise, competing with folks east as we would competing west, I think.
Another consideration is the strength of fencing in those areas. I've competed in the past year in Cleveland, Chicago, Philly, and D.C., all of which have reasonably large groups of skilled fencers. But, competitions a ways east of us tend to be stronger than competitions a ways west. Part of that is the New York folks drifting down to strong tournaments, but that's not all of it. Of course, we all want as much fencing as possible, and as strong fencing as we can get.
I'd wrap this up into some logical argument, but I have to pick up my teammate in 3 minutes and get to fencing practice.

[edew]

While my work with the RYC and such are pretty much voluntary, I do get paid to officiate and to help in the Bout Committee work. I do a good job in those capacities and am asked to do them time and again. And I get paid very well for doing those jobs.

The point is that events should charge enough to pay the referees and the bout committee folks enough money, and have enough at the end of the day to make the host organizer feel rewarded financially to try the endeavor again. The secondary point is that the money (for the most part) stays in the fencing community. Money paid to me for officiating will be recycled into equipment purchase or a future competition entry fee. Cycling money within the community will benefit fencing more than letting that same amount of money go to airlines, rental car agencies, hotels, venues. Actually, the amount going to airlines, rental car agencies, etc., are usually about 10-20 times the amount going to the fencing community through entry fees. Regionalizing will remove some of that excess expenditure.

[zeissg]

OK... my turn

Eric and the people up north have done a wonderful job with the Bay Cup. It is something that I hope we can copy here in the southern half of California. That being said, it is not clear to me that it is the best approach to have the national office jump on a good idea and McDonald-ize it.

I think we should all look at the model and see if we can adopt it to our areas. This will require cooperation between clubs, divisions and (on occassion) sections. I think that what will ultimately develop are several variations on the theme, some of which may offer additional unique ideas that can be added to the mix.

One thing that I think we all should be careful of, however, is disregarding or undervaluing the efforts of those who have run these tournaments and events so far. I think that the negative feelings about regionalization and centralization in a large part come from the relatively dismissive tone that such proposals take. Those folks have a lot of tactical AND strategic wisdom - and we should draw on that. It doesn't mean that everything has to stay as it was... or cannot evolve.... or even completly change... its just that good ideas (the Bay Cup and RYC's are GOOD IDEAS) can benefit from dialog with, the perspective of and input from of those with much experience.

I think that the USFA should encourage development of Bay Cup-style events and derivatives in the current divisions/sections. Give it a couple of years and lets see what evolves. Then, maybe, we can engineer best-of-breed solutions for a number of issues.

Gary Zeiss
Los Angeles

[azfencer]

I'm totally confused, maybe someone can reexplain this regionalization to me. I understand how it works in California and "urban fencing hubs" but I don't get how it works and/or helps anything in areas like Arizona or Kansas or whereever that don't have a very high concentration of fencing. Will the business model really make sense? I don't see how anyone can make money on this or create attractive events that don't require just as much travel as the current system. Is the idea that if we can't support regional fencing then we just don't get any? Where does that leave us?

I do support developing regional events and I like the PCS series, I just don't get how it will transfer to other areas. Thanks to whoever can explain this.

[DHCJr]

Eric, your post were very good, but I still have some questions. Since the "Bay Cup" area is part of the Pacific Region, does that mean they have 2 chances of qualifying to Nationals.

It sounds like and I could be off base, you can choose what Region you are part of.

I am not sure how the Regions are created. It appears you have implied the Regions are decided locally, but the RYC is controlled nationally.

The Pacific Coast section I will admit is not typical. From what I am reading, most sections do not do much. I like the PCS Circuit and hope it continues.

Your post has made it more interesting, rather than scary.

[fluidfencer]

azfencer,

I can speak from way out in the sticks.

The fellow from LA (geiss?) made reference to the fact that what Eric has done in the Bay Cup involved coordination of Section/Division/Club and to some degree USFA. Regionalization requires better communication, and a structure that progresses athletes to a higher level in a fair and logical manner. The current Sections appear to be too big to manage effectively, and the methods for qualification to a national tournament do not produce a system that matches fencers of comparable skills.

What the Regional Youth Circuits do for fencers now is to organize a well defined group of fencers, develop a schedule that takes all areas within the region into account, provide a means of earning national points through the Super RYCs (although that may change in the future), all within a system that provides fencers and tournament hosts and regional coordinators with a set of guidelines that help make a great fencing experience. The kids get a higher level of competition because tournaments are better publicized and organized, and the very best go on to the NACs. There comes a point where a B-rated Y14 fencer should not be competing with a Y14 who has only been fencing for four months... which is kind of what we have now.

Before the RYCs, there was almost nothing to help develop younger fencers, except as possible add-ons to open events or small tournaments among club members. We are travelling, but for a very good reason, and getting the right kind of experience. The RYC calendar will be posted before the season starts so that families can plan. I have noticed more communication among coaches in the region as well. This could happen with all tournaments as well, but is generally not.

I know I'm not saying this as well as I could. Some of this is just requires putting a structure in place that allows fencers to know what they have to do to get to the next level, using some type of objective criteria like points. It's going to require more coordination, and planning That could lead to benefits in things like the numbers of referees as well.

I don't know that I would think of this as any type of business model. We have earned money for our club from the RYCs, but the primarily goal has more to do with developing more and better fencers.

It may be a few years before we figure out how to do all this *sigh*

I'm totally confused, maybe someone can reexplain this regionalization to me. I understand how it works in California and "urban fencing hubs" but I don't get how it works and/or helps anything in areas like Arizona or Kansas or whereever that don't have a very high concentration of fencing. Will the business model really make sense? I don't see how anyone can make money on this or create attractive events that don't require just as much travel as the current system. Is the idea that if we can't support regional fencing then we just don't get any? Where does that leave us?

I do support developing regional events and I like the PCS series, I just don't get how it will transfer to other areas. Thanks to whoever can explain this.

[millebournes]

Does anyone in the top areas of fencing think through anything before they change the rules? It doesn't seem like it.

[oiuyt]

Part of the issue is that at the "top areas" there isn't always agreement about what is best for fencing in the country or how best to get where we want to go. There are some people pushing to increase the significance of the RYC/SRYC events and others that are interested in decreasing the pressure to perform that Y10/Y12 fencers are currently facing (is it the best thing for the development of a 9-year-old to fly halfway across the country for a high importance tournament, or should nearly all fencers at this stage still be fencing mostly low-stakes and just for fun?). Some of these people are pushing for national points to be given at SRYCs and RYCs, others are pushing to not have this be the case this coming season, and still others don't like the idea of national points given out in tournaments not directly under close oversight of the national office. This is playing out between the youth committee, members of the Executive Committee and BoD, the various organizers of the RYC events, and undoubtedly others.

Some times it takes a season (or partial season) of seeing what result the decisions result it to realize what the outcome of some decisions might be. The decentralization into regions is new. There will be some starts and stops. I wouldn't be surprised to see some rollbacks of some changes at times (for one, I wouldn't be surprised if SRYC events are not national points events next season).

And of course generally rumors of changes to come are leaked out well before the changes are discussed, much less agreed to. Sometimes those rumors are spread through traditional grapevine activity (aided at times by things such as this forum). Other times they appear in official documents such as the national newsletter. A perfect example of this was the HPC floating the idea of limiting D1 NACs to A/B fencers which was "announced" to be taking place starting with this past season, despite the HPC not yet having brought the matter to the BoD. In fact the BoD did not approve the change and we stayed with C and above fencers eligible (actually the HPC never formally introduced the change after discovering that it would likely not pass). This likely will be revisted again this July, with "official" sources having, again, already said that the change will be in place for next season. Will it? Who knows at this point.

The convenient thing about such leakage is it allows for people to respond to proposals beforehand rather than merely get stuck with them after the fact. Have strong feelings one way or the other? Talk them up. Mention them to your BoD reps. Hopefully an agenda for the BoD meeting will be released soon (generally this only comes out the week before the meeting). This will allow for people to see what motions are coming and to think about and discuss their opinions. If/when I have a copy of the agenda I'll make sure it's available here (assuming that it isn't by then).

Meanwhile, getting worried about changes that might or might not occur, or indeed might or might not actually even be proposals, is rarely the best use of one's time or energy. We'll see what we have once there's more actual information.

Eric, your post were very good, but I still have some questions. Since the "Bay Cup" area is part of the Pacific Region, does that mean they have 2 chances of qualifying to Nationals.

It sounds like and I could be off base, you can choose what Region you are part of.

Not only can you (currently) choose which region, you're not stuck in a region. In theory, under the system from this past season, you could fly around the country attempting to qualify through as many regions as finances permitted. Everyone has N chances of qualifying where N == # of RYCs. Then again, qualification was via participation rather than via placement, IIRC.

-B :)

[Schiavona]

I am not sure but I suspect we have the largest section geographically in the USFA.

No you don't. Pacific Northwest section streches from Utah to Alaska and from western Montana to the Pacific Ocean. I'd trade your travel problems for mine in a heartbeat(but not your hot weather )