NCAA's and foreign fencers

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by MrEpee

I personally think that it's great to have so many foreign fencers participating in NCAA. It helps to raise the competitive level of an event that would be a joke without them.

Originally Posted by prototoast

I don't think the NCAA's would be a joke without foreign fencers. There are quite a number of excellent college-aged fencers from the US. The biggest thing keeping NCAA's weak is the limit of two fencers per school.

Originally Posted by MrEpee

It's a good topic for conversation, so if you want to discuss, feel free to start a new thread on the subject... I would edit my post to remove that sentence, but I can't for some reason.

Merely starting the thread.... (What?!?!?! Oiuyt actually ISN'T contributing to thread-drift for once?!?!?!?!!!!)

-B :)

[edew]

I would say NCAA fencing was better off with foreign fencers participating, say 15-30+ years ago. But now, I don't think that's the case anymore. Top-level junior US fencers can regularly beat top-level foreign fencers with no problem. Or at least they can go toe-to-toe with no shame in the outcome.

And in a few more years, when our cadet level fencers like Chinman, Meyers, Kim, Meinhardt, and others go off to college, you'll see them performing at a top-level on par with anyone else from any other country coming into the US for scholarship and competition.

[noodle]

i think it adds extra competition, which is good. foreign fencers aren't dominating. they're doing well for themselves, for sure, which is why they're imported. but its not like hte results are overwhelmed by them. here's the top 4 in all weapons except MF, which i don't recall exactly the order in which that ended up. foreign fencers are indicated:

WS
1	Emily Jacobson	 		Columbia/Barnard	
2	Mariel Zagunis			Notre Dame
3	Siobhan Byrne 			Ohio State	x
4	Valerie Providenza 		Notre Dame 

WF	
1.	Emily Cross			Harvard
2.	Alicja Kryczalo			Notre Dame	x
3.	Jacqueline Leahy		Princeton
4.	Erzsebet Garay			St. John's	x

WE
1	Anna Garina			Wayne State	x
2	Amy Orlando			Notre Dame
3	Elizabeth Morgan Midgley	Columbia/Barnard
4	Holly Buechel			Pennsylvania

MS
1	Sergey Isayenko			St. John's	x
2	Patrick Ghattas			Notre Dame
3	Timothy Hagamen			Harvard	
4	Franz Boghicev			Penn State	x

ME
1	Michal Sobieraj			Notre Dame	x
2	Marek Petraszek			Wayne State	x
3	Soren Thompson			Princeton
4	Denis Tolkachev			Ohio State	x

[oiuyt]

Looking at this year's results, here are the foreign fencers (please correct if I miss anyone):

WS:
3rd Siobhan Byrne (Ireland)
WF:
2nd Alicja Kryczalo (Poland)
4th Erzsebet Garay (Hungary)
8th Julia Földi (Hungary)
16th Diana Schawlowski (Germany)
WE:
1st Anna Garina (Ukraine)
11th Anna Vinnikov (Isreal)
13th Reka Szele (Hungary)
MS:
1st Sergey Isayenko (Ukraine)
4th Franz Boghicev (Germany)
11th Jaroslaw Jelinek (Poland)
MF:
1st Boaz Ellis (Isreal)
4th Nonpatat Panchan (Thailand)
5th Nitai Kfir (Isreal)
7th Jakub Jedrkowiak (Poland)
ME:
1st Michal Sobieraj (Poland)
2nd Marek Petraszek (Poland)
4th Denis Tolkachev (Russia)
5th Arpad Horvath (Hungary)
15th Wojciech Dudek (Poland)
21st Kai Keller (Germany)

ME and MF seem to have a significant number of foreign fencers at the top. The rest just have scattered representation from abroad.

What's non-US collegiate fencing like? Even close to the same standard?

-B :)

[Mr Epee]

My reference was more to do with foreign conscripts helping to make the top levels deeper, not that they were inherently better.

The biggest complaint I hear about NCAA fencing is the number of total scrubs running around, and how top fencers spend most of their time killing muppets, and have too few really competetive bouts.

Supplementing homegrown talent with imports helps with the depth.

[oiuyt]

But is that a problem with NCAA fencing, or collegiate fencing world-wide? Does any OTHER country have collegiate fencing that isn't mostly muppet bashing?

Additionally, would NCAA fencing without the relatively few imported fencers be so significantly weaker as to be a joke relative to what it is now? Would it change significantly?

-B :)

[prototoast]

As per my original point, I do believe the foreign fencers make the NCAA's stronger, and I enjoy fencing against them, but right now the weakest link with the NCAA fencing (particularly with the national championships) is that too many of the good fencers are all at the same schools. Look at Penn St men's sabre, for example. Marten Zagunis placed 4th at last year's nationals, and wasn't even there this year because he was beat out by his teammates.

Same thing happens in dual meets. When 2 schools go up against each other, very often the best 6 fencers in any given weapon might all be from the same school.

So I believe it is more of a competitive balance issue than the US fielding a weak pool of fencers to draw from.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by prototoast

too many of the good fencers are all at the same schools. Look at Penn St men's sabre, for example. Marten Zagunis placed 4th at last year's nationals, and wasn't even there this year because he was beat out by his teammates.

True, but think for a minute how much worse it would be if there were only 3-4 NCAA fencing schools... Having only 2 people on a team means that there is more incentive for top fencers to spread out between the different schools.

Good fencers at a wider variety of Universities is a good thing in my opinion...

[AndrewH]

Yes Penn State sabre is a litle overboard... and you see the same thing with Ohio State and Columbia's sabre teams. But, in their defense, they are doing the strategically correct thing. By monopolizing the good fencers, they are increasing their chances of sending a full 12 to NCAA's, increasing the level of skill at practices, and (perhaps most importantly) keeping those fencers from going to another school.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Merely starting the thread.... (What?!?!?! Oiuyt actually ISN'T contributing to thread-drift for once?!?!?!?!!!!)

-B

no, but he is speaking in third person.


to strongly contribute to thread drift.........


a few problems would be solved if we refused to accept Isreal as a country.......

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

True, but think for a minute how much worse it would be if there were only 3-4 NCAA fencing schools... Having only 2 people on a team means that there is more incentive for top fencers to spread out between the different schools.

Good fencers at a wider variety of Universities is a good thing in my opinion...

oh, i disagree.

I admit, like most people, that since there was pretty much a guarantee of a competitive slot at smith and i'm all kinds of self-absorbed and arrogant and such......... that it positively affected how i rated smith fencing compared to other schools' fencing programs.

but if you spread the top collegiate fencers in the country out, ranking them all absolutely by skill level, giving one to each school, and then going around until there were no more fencers...........

sure every college would have a champion......... but each champion's skills would get worse and worse because their skill level would go down for lack of anyone at their level to fence........

i mean, i have to consistantly get better to keep my competitive slot here, because my other teammates are getting better.

but if we redistributed all collegiate fencing "wealth"....... and mariel zagunis was at smith......

she would get very very very bored. and i wouldn't blame her.

[sabreman]

Use to be that only one fencer per weapon could go from each school. That is how Wayne State use to win it. They would have a strong foreign fencer in each weapon. There were many strong fencers on the deep 3 men teams that didn't make it. I can't remember when the format changed.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

oh, i disagree.

sure every college would have a champion......... but each champion's skills would get worse and worse because their skill level would go down for lack of anyone at their level to fence........

i mean, i have to consistantly get better to keep my competitive slot here, because my other teammates are getting better.

I'm not sure we disagree...
--------------------------

Spreading fencers around does hurt their ability to train (This is why I skipped out on NCAA fencing, and chose to keep school and training seperate)

BUT, concentrating all the best people at a few schools isn't very good at maintaining the legitimacy of our sport at the NCAA level. It's not good for the sport to have Penn State win every year (Sorry Nittney Lions).

The championship has visited several different campuses over the past few years, and it's good.

Also the purpose of NCAA's isn't to build Olympic Champions.

[rmyounis]

Anyone know offhand what NCAA thinks about grad students fencing?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by rmyounis

Anyone know offhand what NCAA thinks about grad students fencing?

I believe you can get an exemption if it's within 5 years of first enrolling in college and you haven't used up your 4 years of eligibility.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

True, but think for a minute how much worse it would be if there were only 3-4 NCAA fencing schools... Having only 2 people on a team means that there is more incentive for top fencers to spread out between the different schools.

Good fencers at a wider variety of Universities is a good thing in my opinion...

Well, I agree with much of your point, and I don't have an ideal solution, I will say that most of the foreign fencers are concentrated at those otherwise strong schools (with the exception of wayne st, which seems to only have strong foreign fencers), so the foreign fencers don't really add much with that regard.

[veeco]

I think what NCAA fencing really lacks is a consistent format.

The dual meet format is nice, but doesn't really foster much of the team spirit: in the end, you're still fencing individual bouts.

Basically, the current format is a feeble attempt at turning fencing into a team sport, while still being able to deliver individual national championship titles.

Further, I don't really think I like the round robin pools format. I think that this was used in the past in world championships and some countries took advantage of it in some way. I think I heard this was happening in NCAA tournaments before. Has anyone heard of stories like this?

[misha]

Originally Posted by veeco

Further, I don't really think I like the round robin pools format. I think that this was used in the past in world championships and some countries took advantage of it in some way. I think I heard this was happening in NCAA tournaments before. Has anyone heard of stories like this?

A particular school result is determined by number of wins, which makes giving up a bout to a teammate useless.
If you were thinking about individual placement - they allow only 2 persons per school, so it is only 1 out of 23 bouts that can be influenced that way.
Does not make much sense either.


.

[fixxmyweapon]

Originally Posted by veeco

I think what NCAA fencing really lacks is a consistent format.

The dual meet format is nice, but doesn't really foster much of the team spirit: in the end, you're still fencing individual bouts.

i don't agree with you. i think that the dual meet format, if anything, fosters team spirit. even though it's just you fencing the bout, it's amazing how much more confidence you have and how things change when you have your entire squad behind you on strip cheering for you. also, squads have to work together to get the wins to win the meet. if one squad doesn't pull their weight, the meet can be lost. i really think that the dual meet format brings out team spirit. and if you don't belileve me, come to a unc meet, we're loud as hell. peach had to shut us up at temple earlier this year

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I believe you can get an exemption if it's within 5 years of first enrolling in college and you haven't used up your 4 years of eligibility.

And the school you graduated from is the school you are doing your graduate work at.