Div 1 Nac's

[afc fencer]

I have heard a rumor that if u have a D or a C u will no longer be able to fence in Div 1 Nac's. Does any one know if this is true?

[edew]

[quote]Originally posted by afc fencer:
<strong>I have heard a rumor that if u have a D or a C u will no longer be able to fence in Div 1 Nac's. Does any one know if this is true?</strong><hr></blockquote>

My understanding, from talking to a member of the High performance committee is that essentially B's and higher will have access. Other than them, some number of the top juniors and top cadets, and top X (and Y) from the Div II and Div III Summer Nationals (of the just concluded year), and some veterans as well. Sorry, no wheelchair fencers.

Also, the format will change. All events will be one-day events. The format will be two rounds of pools with 60% each time, to DE with no repechage to 32. Then DE with repechage from 32 to a final of 8. That should give folks some fun to work with.

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: edew ]</p>

[shyHeidi]

What is repechage? I'm reading the big book of fencing and it mentioned it early on in the book but said nothing about what it was, and didn't say "more on this later" or anything, so I don't know that it'll explain it, and it's not in the fencing.net glossary... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[edew]

[quote]Originally posted by shyHeidi:
<strong>What is repechage? I'm reading the big book of fencing and it mentioned it early on in the book but said nothing about what it was, and didn't say "more on this later" or anything, so I don't know that it'll explain it, and it's not in the fencing.net glossary... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Double direct elimination. Gotta lose twice to exit the competition.

[Boo Boo]

Isn't repechage a little old fashioned for senior/junior competitions (I understand that, internationally, it is still done at a number of Cadet competitions)?

I am surprised that the USFA doesn't move towards the FIE competition format (especially considering that people often ending up doing more than one event - i.e. seniors, junior, team etc,etc,. - that can be a lot of fencing...)

Boo

[Peach]

The idea of having repechage is to give the top competitors in the country in a weapon (i.e., potential world team members) more high-level competition. The best people usually may do junior and senior events in one weapon, but no more than that.

[goldbaker]

When will this format go into effect -- 2002-2003, or some indefinite time in the future?

I have to say I don't agree with limiting the NAC's to B's or above. This will make it very diffcult for a lot of women and people from smaller divisions to fence in an NAC. My wife (a C) is going to be really irritated if she can't fence when the NAC comes to Columbus.

The multiple pools\DE format also sounds a little goofy. While I can understand, to some degree, the desire to limit the number of entrants, I don't understand what was wrong with one pool and then DE's. It's my understanding that the USFA wants to try to prepare higher level fencers to get better international results. If this is the case, why don't they do pools and DE's to 64 on the first day, and then straight to DE's on the second day. I think that's the format for World Cups. Since I'm just a local hack, someone with actual knowledge of international competition formats can correct me if I'm wrong.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>When will this format go into effect -- 2002-2003, or some indefinite time in the future?

I have to say I don't agree with limiting the NAC's to B's or above. This will make it very diffcult for a lot of women and people from smaller divisions to fence in an NAC. My wife (a C) is going to be really irritated if she can't fence when the NAC comes to Columbus.

The multiple pools\DE format also sounds a little goofy. While I can understand, to some degree, the desire to limit the number of entrants, I don't understand what was wrong with one pool and then DE's. It's my understanding that the USFA wants to try to prepare higher level fencers to get better international results. If this is the case, why don't they do pools and DE's to 64 on the first day, and then straight to DE's on the second day. I think that's the format for World Cups. Since I'm just a local hack, someone with actual knowledge of international competition formats can correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, here's the lowdown...

The USFA and the top fencers feel that 2 rounds of pools that were fenced on the second day, of the 2 day format, were very helpful training for going to WC's. US fencers had trouble in pool bouts at the WC's and the lack of difficult pool bouts at NAC's (old format) didn't prepare them as well as 2 pools.

The 2 day format was posing problems. The refs were too tired, and the elite fencers, who have very full competition schedules, didn't want to take the time off for a 2 day tournament. Not to mention that it was costing the USFA lots of money.

So, they tried to develop a format the would meet the following requirements:

1 day format
2 rounds of pools
Provide strong bouts for elite level fencers

This meant resrtricting entries, heavily. The USFA, theoretically, plans to promote the div. 2/3 circuits for everyone else, as a way to earn a rating.

I don't like the criteria myself. Ratings are not a good judge of a fencer's quality. Somebody, a while back mention regional qualifiers. I think that makes much more sense than using ratings, but probably too difficult to manage for the USFA. And who wants to go to DIV 2/3 NAC's just to maybe get a chance to qualify to DIV 1's?

[Boo Boo]

World Cups do run on a two day format:
- Day 1: one round of poules (ideally poules of 7), DE down to L64.
- Day 2: L64 DE without repechage.

The idea of fencing more high difficulty poules is really interesting. I can identify with that: in my country poules in large national competition are not difficult (realistically I would expect to win all), getting to a WC is rather a culture shock...! At a WC if you don't do well in the poules, then you wont get to the DE (or a descent seeding to allow you a chance of getting to the L64 or beyond). One of the ways we try to address this is fence poule fights at national squad training sessions: this is helpful, but it is still training rather than competition...

Interesting,
Boo

[Peach]

Not to mention that we already don't have enough C's and D's in WS to make a good number for Div I NACs as it is, and all those kids who struggled this year and last to earn their D's will feel betrayed.

[afc fencer]

[quote]Not to mention that we already don't have enough C's and D's in WS to make a good number for Div I NACs as it is, <hr></blockquote>

Very true, without all the c's and D's we will probaly not get 25 people in ws. Its a horrible idea. Many c's have made top 8 at div 1 nac's. Caitlin Thompson was a c when she won in south bend.

[goldbaker]

I can certainly sympathize with the desire to make the tournaments a little easier on the referees, but the comment about the busy competition schedules of the elite fencers seems odd to me. If US fencers want to compete better internationally, the top fencers simply need to go to more international competitions. When this happens, they can do very well (see Cliff Bayer). Obviously, there are financial considerations involved, but that's the case in any sport. It seems to me that the very top level of US fencers get most of their points overseas anyway.

I'm not completely sure the point of the NACs should be to mirror a European level event. I can understand limiting the event somewhat -- requiring a D or higher makes sense. Going beyond that, I think, risks cutting off up and coming fencers from a good chance to compete against the elite fencers once in a while. The elite fencers often don't compete in local events or want to train with less skilled fencers, so it only seems fair to give others a shot at them once in while.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by afc fencer:
<strong>

Very true, without all the c's and D's we will probaly not get 25 people in ws. Its a horrible idea. Many c's have made top 8 at div 1 nac's. Caitlin Thompson was a c when she won in south bend.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The biggest objection I have to the A's and B's limitation is that it separates the elite to far from the rest of the pack.

The up and coming fencer's need to practice with good fencers. How else do we expect them to get better? While the top international competitors are too busy, shouldn't the 2nd and 3rd tier fencers be available? There should be a middle ground.

At this rate, an up and coming fencer can't even watch the top fencers, since he/she won't be at the same venue, except at Nationals, if the summer nationals is held concurrently.

Then again, I'm not a women sabrist.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>I can certainly sympathize with the desire to make the tournaments a little easier on the referees, but the comment about the busy competition schedules of the elite fencers seems odd to me. If US fencers want to compete better internationally, the top fencers simply need to go to more international competitions. When this happens, they can do very well (see Cliff Bayer). Obviously, there are financial considerations involved, but that's the case in any sport. It seems to me that the very top level of US fencers get most of their points overseas anyway.

I'm not completely sure the point of the NACs should be to mirror a European level event. I can understand limiting the event somewhat -- requiring a D or higher makes sense. Going beyond that, I think, risks cutting off up and coming fencers from a good chance to compete against the elite fencers once in a while. The elite fencers often don't compete in local events or want to train with less skilled fencers, so it only seems fair to give others a shot at them once in while.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The question that was asked was 'What is the point of Div. 1 NAC's?'

To provide good practice for competitors?
To select world team members?
Fund raisers?
A fun event for all fencers, regardless of skill?

The answer the USFA decided was a tie between the first 2, with all other answers being distant.

That said, it's arguable that practice for our elite is more the focus of the events. That's why they don't want to give the less skilled a shot at them. That's not the purpose of the NAC.

[goldbaker]

I have a B in foil, so I guess I can still go the NAC's when they come around my area. I don't have any national aspirations. If the sport gets big enough -- which I don't think it is yet -- I agree that the USFA will have to come up with a way for fencers to get their "tour card" punched, so to speak. After all, not every golfer in the US gets to play in the US Open.

A couple of observations though. First, the last few NACs I've been to have had anywhere from 160-200 for men's foil, and slightly more for men's epee. By my count, two-thirds to three quarters in those two events had A's or B's anyway. Is closing out the bottom third or quarter really going to have that much effect on the experience that the top level fencers get?

Second, while those two men's events are getting very large, the rest of the events are pretty manageable. Closing out C's or D's may well result in tiny competitions in some weapons, which will hardly give the elite fencers much practice. For example, in many divisions, it is rare to have even a mixed sabre event with more than 15 fencers -- much less an A or B tournament. There will be some good fencers that get shut out of competing at NACs. This may reduce events other than men's epee and men's foil to very small fields.

Finally, I disagree with the concept that a purpose of the NACs should be to provide practice for elite fencers. They are competitions -- not practice. Restricting entry may be justifiable, but not on this basis. A competition is not the place for a certain group of competitors to have a practice amongst themselves.

Basically, I think the USFA is trying to cut down the number of competitors in the larger events. I have some sympathy for them in this respect, having spent some long days (and nights) running local tournaments. But I honestly doubt that it will really prepare individuals better for international competition -- they have to compete internationally to get that experience.

[neevel]

Perhaps one might acheive a compromise by making it C & over, rather than B & over. Given that the D rating is an especially ill-defined indicator of skill (winning a 15 person novice tournament gets you one), you can make a pretty good argument that many D's really don't need to be in an elite-oriented competition. It's a somewhat different picture with C's, especially those who are closing in on the skill level needed for that B.

The current restrictions allow some overlap between Div.II/III and Div. I, thus providing a path for gradual progression at the national level-- the C's who are reaching the top of the Div. II circuit can start to phase-in to Div I competition, and get the competitive experience they need to improve to the get to the B & A level. With a restriction of only B's and A's, the top C's who are reaching the limit of what they can get out of Div. II competitions will end up being stuck there until they earn their B's.

Now, admittedly, nearly all the genuinely elite fencers are going to have come up through the Cadet and Junior circuits and picked up their A's there, so from the standpoint of providing an adequate developmental path for them the above question is probably a non-issue. Perhaps the answer is to tack on a Summer Nationals-style Div. I-A competition to the Div.II/IIIs, and then sort out some way to make it more attractive to the "2nd-tier" A's and B's who aren't yet in serious contention for the international level.

How about something like this: in order to fence in Div I NACs, you need to have a certain minimum number of Div I national points. Then, at Div I-A and Jr./Cadet NACs, award some Div I points to the very top places, so that those competitions serve as the stepping stone to the Div I competions. That way, you'll limit the Div I NACs to the truly elite competitors, fulfilling the purpose of preparing them for World Cups, and ensure that you'll get adequate numbers for the Div I-A NACs.

-Dave

[edew]

Remember that this format is the result of consensus among the high performance committee, which includes a number of fencers. So it's not a case of the USFA decreeing a competition format by pulling the format from out of it's a$s. In this particular case, it is not an isolated USFA making out-of-touch decrees.

That said, I think the HPC is making a sort-of out-of-touch decree. While it's important for them to get tough bouts in, it's equally important that they be available opponents for the up-and-comers. Many of them don't seem to recall that they were once up-and-comers and had the opportunity to fence against the previous generation's top fencers.

It was the Nick Bravins who beat the Michael Marxes to become top fencers. Then it was the Bayers who beat the Bravins to become the next generation of top fencers. Now, it's the Duprees/Gerberman/etal who are beating the Bayers. (at least in men's foil -- I'm not too hep with the ancestry in the other weapons). If these current group don't allow the C and lower fencers the opportunity to meet against them, then when they retire or give up, we lose that link.

[veeco]

Yes, but one seems to forget that DivI NACs are not the only tournaments that exist out there too.

There are plenty of tournaments where one can earn their ratings, starting from JO's, Junior NACs, DivII and DivIII down to local events.

Remember there are only 3 NACs per year, and aside from the top fencers not a lot of people go to all of them.

While it's understandable that people are sad not to be able to fence in DivI tournaments which are by all means "sexier" than other ones, it's still better practice for them to go to DivII and DivIII rather than spending money to go to a DivI and get spanked.

Yes, there are Cs who make it to the top 8, sometimes, but that's more an exception than the norm. Most of the time Cs and Ds did not even make it into the 2nd day.

I think this format is interesting and will provide for good fencing, possibly attracting more Bs and As to them than before, so I would expect at least a 100 fencers in the well populated weapons (Men's Epee and Men's Foil), and maybe 50 to 60 in the other weapons.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>
A couple of observations though. First, the last few NACs I've been to have had anywhere from 160-200 for men's foil, and slightly more for men's epee. By my count, two-thirds to three quarters in those two events had A's or B's anyway. Is closing out the bottom third or quarter really going to have that much effect on the experience that the top level fencers get?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe, but it does provide a way t provide a tough one day event, instead of a 2 day event, where the massess don't fence the elite anyway.

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>Second, while those two men's events are getting very large, the rest of the events are pretty manageable. Closing out C's or D's may well result in tiny competitions in some weapons, which will hardly give the elite fencers much practice. For example, in many divisions, it is rare to have even a mixed sabre event with more than 15 fencers -- much less an A or B tournament. There will be some good fencers that get shut out of competing at NACs. This may reduce events other than men's epee and men's foil to very small fields.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that's the idea. Small, difficult events, and theoretically boosting the desire for div 2/3 events.

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>Finally, I disagree with the concept that a purpose of the NACs should be to provide practice for elite fencers. They are competitions -- not practice. Restricting entry may be justifiable, but not on this basis. A competition is not the place for a certain group of competitors to have a practice amongst themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The USFA is trying to produce world class competitors, and the top competitors now look at NAC's as a preparation for bigger and better things. You mentioned it yourself, most team members get their points internationally, making the NAC's more practice than competition.

[quote]Originally posted by goldbaker:
<strong>Basically, I think the USFA is trying to cut down the number of competitors in the larger events. I have some sympathy for them in this respect, having spent some long days (and nights) running local tournaments. But I honestly doubt that it will really prepare individuals better for international competition -- they have to compete internationally to get that experience. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Results speak for themselves. The US results have been improving, and many of the competitors cited the 2 rounds of pools as strong preparation for world cups. Obviously not the same, but better than previous solutions.

[afc fencer]

The US rating system is bad way to judge how good a fencer is. At sectionals in the senior event all three of my de's were against c's I beat the first one 15-4, the next one I beat 15-7, and the last fencer I beat 15-12. Their skill level was totally different. I have beaten A's and b's before easily. The us rating system is totally worthless.
I come from Georgia and we can't even pull in 10 people for a saber event and I being the only female saberist who competes at local events its almost next to impossible to earn my b unless I go to a stupid div 2

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: afc fencer ]</p>