Comparative strengths of fencing competitions

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I would like to get a guesstimate on how strong this ME competition is. I suspect that it could hold its own against many an american competition, but it would be fun to know more.

Ystad Interational, as it is called, has been going since the 30ies. In the 2003 edition, there was an American A-rated fencer. He had that year placed in the lower half of the Div I championships. He was in my round-2 poule, and ended up 38th of 92. The poule winner, multiple Sw. champion, placed 9th overall, while I did a measly 88th. In that poule, the american placed 4th out of 7, and the poules were well balanced. In the bout between the American
and the poule winner, the latter won 5-0 in 45 seconds - a complete blowout. Of the top 20 in the list, at least 15 have been National team members in various northen European countries at one time or another.

In what kind of US. competition can one expect that an A will end up right in the middle (3 won of 6 bouts, +-0 in indicators) of a poule?

Based on the few data bits above, what would be your best comparison to a similarily strong ME competition in the USA? Div II? Strong regional competition?

I lost against the American A 1-5, and I got the impression that that was a fair representation of our abilities. What level of US. fencing would on average lose 1-5 against a motivated A? Medium U, strong U, weak E?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Hmm...... E's and D's. There are many different levels of A's though. There are "easy" A's, and guys like Seth and Cody, who are just in a totally different room.

[Derstern]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Hmm...... E's and D's. There are many different levels of A's though. There are "easy" A's, and guys like Seth and Cody, who are just in a totally different room.

I'd like to call them Industrial Strength A's.

[KD5MDK]

Pool bouts are too short to entirely represent how you compare to another fencer. I've lost bouts 5-0 to fencers 2 levels above me, and won bouts 5-3 against fencers 3 levels above me.

Any competition with 92 fencers, and >15 fencers at the national team level, would be a National scale competition in the US, I think. What system was used at this tournament for advancement? In the US, it has become usual for a single round of pools followed by direct elimination to occur. In that case, wherever a fencer is eliminated you must look to their opponent to gauge what that means.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

In the 2003 edition, there was an American A-rated fencer. He had that year placed in the lower half of the Div I championships.

I looked it up, and saw that my memory served me wrong. Actually, he had gotten 51st in a field of 117 at the 2003 summernationals in the Div. IA event.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[ReallyFatFencer]

im fat (500+ lbs).

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Any competition with 92 fencers, and >15 fencers at the national team level, would be a National scale competition in the US, I think.

So we are talking NAC or higher, then?

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

What system was used at this tournament for advancement? In the US, it has become usual for a single round of pools followed by direct elimination to occur. In that case, wherever a fencer is eliminated you must look to their opponent to gauge what that means.

92 in round 1 poules, 91 promoted to round 2 poules. Thereafter 84 promoted to an incomplete DE of 128. The A-rated american, rated 31st after poules, lost against the 34th rated in the round of 64. The result was 7-15 against a Norwegian junior ME natl. team member.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Mauler]

This post doesn't directly reply to your question. Rather, it should give you an insight on how the rating system works in the U.S. as opposed to how it works in your side of the pond.

In the United States, the ratings are purely relative. And the "validity" of the same rating (i.e. "A") varies greatly from region to region, or level-to-level. One earns a rating by placing at a certain rank at a tournament of a certain quality. No more, no less.

In pratice, the rating system in the U.S. does serve its purpose well enough. In most regions, it's difficult to attain a high rating unless they travel out of local level and start attending sectional and national tournaments. If not for stronger quality, at least for the number of entrants (which affects the resulting ratings) and presence of high-rated opponents (whom you must defeat in order to earn a compatible rating).

So generally, as fencers reach national-level they start to compete at more or less an equal terms. And their relative rankings become more useful, and meaningful.

However, at areas where they meet the necessary criteria to qualify a tournament as, say, "A-grade," it's very much possible for "local" fencers to become "USFA A-rated fencer" without ever having met an official USFA referee in their entire fencing career. This, of course, is an exception to the system. But there are pockets of fencing communities in the U.S. that are "rating generators" that produce "not-so-up-to-par" high-rated fencers. At the same time, there are areas where they do, in fact, have "the real stuff" and produce "valid" A-rated fencers locally just as well.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Mauler

In pratice, the rating system in the U.S. does serve its purpose well enough. In most regions, it's difficult to attain a high rating unless they travel out of local level and start attending sectional and national tournaments.

This guy had relocated to Hungary for one year, so that he could compete in European competitions to better himself.

Originally Posted by Mauler

However, at areas where they meet the necessary criteria to qualify a tournament as, say, "A-grade," it's very much possible for "local" fencers to become "USFA A-rated fencer" without ever having met an official USFA referee in their entire fencing career. This, of course, is an exception to the system. But there are pockets of fencing communities in the U.S. that are "rating generators" that produce "not-so-up-to-par" high-rated fencers.

Would this apply to the Salle Auriol, perhaps? Or is that a sensitive question?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I looked it up, and saw that my memory served me wrong. Actually, he had gotten 51st in a field of 117 at the 2003 summernationals in the Div. IA event.

This is a very unimpressive result for an A rated fencer, implying either he had a bad day or he's a very weak A. If the latter, then the fact that he has an A is almost meaningless information for your pruposes.

Div I ME NACs in the US tend to be about (and frequently slightly over) half A's. So even "typical" A's can and do (of necessity) finish in the bottom half.

That said, 15 national-team level fencers is a lot.

Hard to gauge really, but I'd guess D1 NAC level with more top-line strength but not as deep.

-B :)