Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

lochinvar · 08-27-2002, 07:07 AM

I was looking over the new chart for qualifying events for ratings last night, and noticed some seeming inconsistencies.

For A1/A2 events and B1/B2 events, the requirements for rated fencers entered, rated fencers finishing, and ratings awarded are identical with the exception that the A2 and B2 events award more of the lower ratings in the final standings than do A1 and B1 events.

However, the C1/C2 requirements for rated fencers entered and rated fencers finish are substantially different:

A C1 event requires a minimum of two C-rated fencers entered, and a minimum of two C-rated fencers finishing in the top 8.

Curiously, a C2 event does not require any C-rated fencers be entered.

Another anomaly:
A C2 event requires 8 rated fencers be entered, whereas B2 and A2 events only require 6 rated fencers be entered (though the ratings are higher).

And yet another anomaly:
The number and types of ratings awarded for a C2 event is identical to the number and types of ratings awarded for a C1 qualified event, whereas the A2 and B2 events give out more of the lower ratings than do A1 and B1 events.

Has anybody else noticed this? Any comments? Any plausible explanations as to why C2 event requirements and rewards diverge so noticeably from the pattern established for the other qualifying events?

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 07:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lochinvar:
I was looking over the new chart for qualifying events for ratings last night, and noticed some seeming inconsistencies.

For A1/A2 events and B1/B2 events, the requirements for rated fencers entered, rated fencers finishing, and ratings awarded are identical with the exception that the A2 and B2 events award more of the lower ratings in the final standings than do A1 and B1 events.

However, the C1/C2 requirements for rated fencers entered and rated fencers finish are substantially different:

A C1 event requires a minimum of two C-rated fencers entered, and a minimum of two C-rated fencers finishing in the top 8.

Curiously, a C2 event does not require any C-rated fencers be entered.

Another anomaly:
A C2 event requires 8 rated fencers be entered, whereas B2 and A2 events only require 6 rated fencers be entered (though the ratings are higher).

And yet another anomaly:
The number and types of ratings awarded for a C2 event is identical to the number and types of ratings awarded for a C1 qualified event, whereas the A2 and B2 events give out more of the lower ratings than do A1 and B1 events.

Has anybody else noticed this? Any comments? Any plausible explanations as to why C2 event requirements and rewards diverge so noticeably from the pattern established for the other qualifying events?<hr /></blockquote>That is not an anomaly. it gives a way for divisions to create ratings as high as C. the idea is that both sets of requirements deserve a C, and that without both, it would be more difficult for smaller divisions to create C's, since ultimately the first two C's, the seeds, if you will, would have to be created at a national level.

-m

lochinvar · 08-27-2002, 07:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
That is not an anomaly. it gives a way for divisions to create ratings as high as C. the idea is that both sets of requirements deserve a C, and that without both, it would be more difficult for smaller divisions to create C's, since ultimately the first two C's, the seeds, if you will, would have to be created at a national level.

-m<hr /></blockquote>Let me get this straight:
If you already have C's in your division, then you can make more C's at a 15-person event.
However, if you don't have any C's in your division, you have to wait until you can scrape 25 bodies together in order to make a C.

That doesn't seem to make sense, if what they were after was to help smaller divisions get some C ratings. Smaller divisions would necessarily draw fewer people at events, thereby making it harder for them to make their first two C's... after that, of course, they would be in the same boat as the rest of us...

Okay, so I can follow the reasoning for why the C2 requirements are different, even if it doesn't make sense to me.

But that still doesn't explain why the number of ratings awarded at a C2 event (25 entrants) is the same as the number awarded at a C1 event (15 entrants). Shouldn't they at least double up the number of E's awarded at the bottom end? That seems to be what they've done with the A2 and B2 events.

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 08:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lochinvar:
But that still doesn't explain why the number of ratings awarded at a C2 event (25 entrants) is the same as the number awarded at a C1 event (15 entrants). Shouldn't they at least double up the number of E's awarded at the bottom end? That seems to be what they've done with the A2 and B2 events.<hr /></blockquote>well, remember: this is NOT a system made from scratch, but rather an adaptation of an existing one. one of the problems under the old system was that it was, at times, too easy to earn a C. on the other hand, they did want C's to be able to be created locally. the solution: up number of entrants required for a C2. if you up the ratings given as well, that kinda defeats the purpose.

-m

peircer · 08-27-2002, 10:20 AM

Where's my asprin....

lochinvar · 08-27-2002, 11:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
<snip> if you up the ratings given as well, that kinda defeats the purpose.

-m<hr /></blockquote>I fail to see how giving out a few more E's at the bottom end would have any effect at all on how easy or difficult it is to earn a C rating at the top end.

Care to explain?

oiuyt · 08-27-2002, 02:53 PM

C2 events are different. Until this month, what is now a C2 event required only 15 entries and was a C1 event. This allowed for divisions to create C's without having any. It also, as Mike points out, made some fairly easy C tournaments (relative to earning C's in any other manner). Moving the tournament method that uses just D's and E's to make a C up to the 25 level is a response to that.

Clearly whether or not extra E's get awarded doesn't affect how hard it is to earn C's. However, the ratings awarded in the C2 are the same as those awarded in the B2, just taken down one notch each. That makes sense. If anything, there might be an argument to change the C1 ratings to:
1 C
2-4 D
5-6 E
This in turn adds the "problem" that more D's are awarded than E's (a problem we had in the old system with C1's if there was no fence-off for third as was most common). I'm not surprised that the USFA decided to go with completing the level of the tableau and give E's to the top 8, it's the same choice I would have made in their place.

With the exception of the obvious omission at the A2 level I think the new chart was well done. I don't agree with all of the decisions that went into the changes, but all of the decisions seem to be reasonable ones. The new system/chart is better than the old in several ways. That said, I'm glad the changes (as a whole) were made.

-B

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 05:08 PM

And since Div I events now require a C minimum I'm sure they didn't want a lot of people getting C's and flooding the events they just restricted, I would guess.

The by-product of that, though, is clearly to further hamper the more thinly populated Divisions and Sections as far as ratings are concerned.

lochinvar · 08-27-2002, 08:24 PM

Inquartata, it reminds me of the story of a company that wanted its sales force to be better able to respond to the customers while in the field; to that end, they provided laptops for all their sales reps-- then, to deter theft, they firmly chained all of the laptops to desks back in the main office...

They have a way for the divisions to award Cs without first having any, thereby making it easier for the smaller divisions. Then they increase the number of entries required to award Cs without having any, thereby making it more difficult for the smaller divisions.

The upshot is that I guess we'll be seeing a sharp increase of new Cs from California and the East Coast, and the rest of us will struggle along as best we can--just like we've been doing.

Ah, well. The USFA giveth, and the USFA taketh away...

In any case, thanks to one and all for your clear and cogent answers. I can't say I agree, but at least now I understand.

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 09:01 PM

LOL!

three_hundred_fifty_five · 08-28-2002, 08:10 AM

Sounds like someone doesn't have a C.

lochinvar · 08-28-2002, 08:18 AM

Immaterial.

The fact that I'm paranoid doesn't in itself prove that they're not out to get me.

edew · 08-28-2002, 08:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lochinvar:
Inquartata, it reminds me of the story of a company that wanted its sales force to be better able to respond to the customers while in the field; to that end, they provided laptops for all their sales reps-- then, to deter theft, they firmly chained all of the laptops to desks back in the main office...

They have a way for the divisions to award Cs without first having any, thereby making it easier for the smaller divisions. Then they increase the number of entries required to award Cs without having any, thereby making it more difficult for the smaller divisions.

The upshot is that I guess we'll be seeing a sharp increase of new Cs from California and the East Coast, and the rest of us will struggle along as best we can--just like we've been doing.

Ah, well. The USFA giveth, and the USFA taketh away...

In any case, thanks to one and all for your clear and cogent answers. I can't say I agree, but at least now I understand.<hr /></blockquote>Fencing growth is strong in all areas of the US, not just the two coasts. Places where people never thought to have fencing, Utah, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri (ok, we'll leave Missouri off the examples list) are growing with good, strong fencers.

Consider what will happen when the USFA membership numbers grow from 15000 to 30000 or 50000. It would be impossible to run all those NACs and expect to do them within a decent amount of time. Just the number of referees will be staggering.

To deal with that, USFA is trying to regionalize the events more and more. We are seeing the first step with regional youth circuits, primarily because parents don't want to pay $1000 for 3 round-trip tickets and hotel rooms, when their child is just starting in the sport. And, because youth fencing is the category among all age-groups that is growing the fastest (and has the largest numbers).

But if and when those youth stay in the sport and become adults, then we need to address their needs. That's when we need to implement regional events. When that happens, the smaller divisions will have better chances to grow big and do well. If all you have is NACs, people from the smaller divisions won't go. If there are more "Heartland Opens", people from those smaller divisions will go to those. Then, they will be able to get better and move onto national events.

Julie · 08-28-2002, 09:03 AM

This is somewhat off-topic, but I remember hearing at some point that if you meet the requirements for more than one tournament classification you could combine the results, and since an A2 competition by definition meets the B2 requirements, couldn't you give out all the A2 ratings PLUS give E's to 11th and 12th place?

[ 08-28-2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Julie ]

JEC · 08-28-2002, 09:05 AM

Part of the success of the Southwest section at the youth NACs has been due to the fact that there have been a very active regional youth circuit for several years. The number of participants have grown every year.

Purple Fencer · 08-28-2002, 09:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Julie:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I remember hearing at some point that if you meet the requirements for more than one tournament classification you could combine the results, and since an A2 competition by definition meets the B2 requirements, couldn't you give out all the A2 ratings PLUS give E's to 11th and 12th place?<hr /></blockquote>Yeah....that happened at the Long Beach Invitational a few years back.

Purple Fencer · 08-28-2002, 09:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lochinvar:
Immaterial.

The fact that I'm paranoid doesn't in itself prove that they're not out to get me.<hr /></blockquote>Love your sig...but you forgot the rest of it. "He's dead, Jim...you grab his tricorder, I'll get the wallet."

oiuyt · 08-28-2002, 09:34 AM

Julie- Of course you can, that's why I referred to it as the omission in the A2 chart.

Loch- how does the new chart lead to a "sharp increase of new Cs from California and the East Coast"? Granted A2 competitions allow for a few more C's (5-8 instead of 5-6) but these are the ONLY new C's given out (techincally in a B1 2-4 instead of 2-3 but with tied 3rd in every non-NQ path event anyway....). 2 C's in A2 events is hardly likely to result in a sharp increase. Once you're talking about events of 25+ people they're fairly likely to pull out a bunch of As and Bs resulting in very hard events.

Mid-sized divisions with marginal A1 comps are a much better bet for earning a C and the ratings for those haven't changed. The C2 event makes it HARDER to get a C not easier, under the old chart this was available with 15 fencers as a C1.

The new chart makes it harder to earn a C regardless of where you live. It helps to make things make more sense in several ways.
1) Under the old system it was common to have tied 3rd in any non-NQ event (NQ events require a fence-off which is stupid given that nationals and international competition no longer fence it off) but do the same in an NQ result and you still need to win the bronze medal bout for the rating.
2) Realizing that there are events which are in the upper teens in participation and events in the 30's-40's and that these DON'T deserve the same ratings was a very good step.
3) Getting rid of the 9th place rating (given that most evetns are DE format now) was a good move.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they ARE out to get you either....

Just because they're National Office doesn't mean that they don't care about recreational fencers and smaller divisions. (oh wait....)

I may not always agree with the national policies but these changes were good. They don't imbalance the chart, they do improve it in several ways. I have yet to see any glaring fault that would tend to favor/disfavor any particular type of division or area of the country that is worse than what they had before.

-B

lochinvar · 08-28-2002, 10:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oiuyt:

Loch- how does the new chart lead to a "sharp increase of new Cs from California and the East Coast"?<hr /></blockquote>I was probably unclear in that statement; what I intended to say was that there would be an increase of Cs in those areas relative to areas that are less populated and which don't draw as many participants at events. I.e., there will be more Cs appearing from the bigger divisions and fewer appearing from the smaller divisions.

I did not mean to imply that there will be an increase in the absolute number of Cs in the USFA overall--or, if there is, it wouldn't necessarily be attributable to the new chart.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The C2 event makes it HARDER to get a C not easier, under the old chart this was available with 15 fencers as a C1.<hr /></blockquote>Bingo. That's my point--except that I would add "...HARDER for smaller divisions...".

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The new chart makes it harder to earn a C regardless of where you live. (italics added)<hr /></blockquote>I disagree. An example to support my position:

Large Division A holds a "D and under" tournament in which 30 people enter. Assuming that the quantity and final place requirements are met, at least one C will result.

Small Division B holds a "D and under" tournament in which only 20 people enter. Again assuming all other criteria are met, no C will result.

All else being equal,
Larger Division = more entries = C
Smaller Division = fewer entries = no C

Net result: more Cs coming from larger divisions, fewer Cs coming from smaller divisions.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, that's a different question... But then, we're not discussing value here, just mechanics.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they ARE out to get you either....<hr /></blockquote>Point ceded.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have yet to see any glaring fault that would tend to favor/disfavor any particular type of division or area of the country that is worse than what they had before.
<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's certainly "damning with faint praise," and I think my analysis above refutes the statement.

I understand that National is trying to "de-centralize", and I applaud the effort. I understand that there needs to be a vehicle whereby the divisions can award Cs without needing to already have some, and a way that people can earn a C without resorting to NAC events or Summer Nats.

But none of the foregoing paragraph negates the fact that the anomaly in the chart exists: the C2 qualification departs significantly from the pattern used for the B2 and A2 qualifications.

Whether that anomaly is good or whether it is necessary are different questions entirely-- perhaps fitting candidates for their own new topic...?

oiuyt · 08-28-2002, 12:48 PM

I think that D and under tournaments will play (at best) a minor role in ratings given out. I'm a member of New England div