Red Rocks Training Center

[Fidelio]

Does anybody know anything about the Red Rocks Training Center in Vegas? I'm going to be moving out there in a few months and it looks like it's the best place to train in the valley... am I right? Or have I been seduced by their website? How does the Las Vegas Fencing Center compare to Red Rocks? I fence epee, and I'm looking to really amp up my game over the next few years. Any thoughts would be warmly appreciated! Thanks!

[DHCJr]

I can give you an answer in about 2 weeks. I will be going to the PCC's and I will be going early to see the sites and visit Red Rock. I did go by there before it opened and it will be bigger. It is on the 1st floor of a store front, while Las Vegas is upstairs in a smaller building.

[VegasFencer]

Welcome to fencing in Sin City! There will be many epeeists ready and waiting to fence you . . .

The Fencing Academy of Nevada (www.fencingacademyofnevada.com) and the Red Rock Training Center are the two primary clubs in Las Vegas. You should check them both out when you get here. (The Las Vegas Fencing Center is no longer operating--most of their members are now at the Fencing Academy facility).

Maitre Yves Auriol is the head coach at the Fencing Academy. Not sure who is currently the head coach at Red Rock.

[Fidelio]

I hadn't seen the Academy website before... but it explains why the LVFC website hasn't changed at all since I've been sort of monitoring it. I'll definitely be checking that one out too. It does appear that dues are less at the Academy, which certainly helps!

[lovetofence]

Actually the Red Rock Fencing Center has the only former US Olympic member in Vegas and he is their head Fencing Master, Ed Richards. If you look at their website again you will notice that they charge $60 a month and Fencing Academy charges $65. Red Rock also sells fencing gear where the Academy does not. But the real test is how they did at the Divisionals. Red Rock cleaned up, so they must have the better fencers. Looking at your request you seem to want to train harder and they also have nautilus equipment to work out on where no one else in Vegas does. Kinda handy when your training. I have been there when I went to the Duel this year and the place is big! They have the latest Faverio machines and great strips. You should check out their News page on their website too. That's not hype, that's reality.

[DHCJr]

I did get to the Red Rock Training Center and it is what it says it is. One of the nice items is machines at each end, instead of having one machine in the middle so both fencers can see the lights. This is not just a fencing center. They will be putting in a sound wall between the areas. I think the yoga was disturbing the fencers. Just kidding! They also have some Nautalus machines and as was said they have some good coaches and very good results.

You won't even know you are in Vegas. There are no slot machines. It is about 7 miles west of the strip.

[whtouche]

But the real test is how they did at the Divisionals. Red Rock cleaned up, so they must have the better fencers.

Note that I don't really know anything about the clubs involved, but I'd like to point out that your statement is not necessarily true. Often the strongest fencers at any given club/in any given area don't bother fencing in divisional stuff. So if X club did better at divisionals, that might just mean they had better fencers that went, not necessarily that they had better fencers.

[lovetofence]

Often the strongest fencers at any given club/in any given area don't bother fencing in divisional stuff. So if X club did better at divisionals, that might just mean they had better fencers that went, not necessarily that they had better fencers.

Good point. And I also do not know the clubs involved so I did some investigation with the USFA and their club and division rosters. Only one person from Red Rock (He is a B04) did not fence. Otherwise it looks like the whole division came to fence. I also saw on the PCS website that they took second in the Men's Team Epee at the Sectionals (out of 16 teams) and some of the members placed high in the final results of the individuals.

All in all they seem to be having fun, and isn't that the bottom line?

[FrankV]

Wow,

A discussion about my place. How neat.

Anyway, yes we took two individual gold’s (men's and women's epee) and two team gold (Epee and Foil) and one team silver (Sabre) at the Divisionals that was held here at my place. We also took silver in the Sectional men's epee team event. We have either won or taken 1-3 in all the local tournaments this year in men's and women’s epee events. There are no Sr. foil or sabre events in this part of the Division.

Does that mean that we are the best place to train? No. You have to feel comfortable with who you are training with and receiving lessons from. Did everyone come to the Divisionals? I would have to say a very high percentage (95% or higher) of the Nevada USFA members did. Only one club (out of four) did not come but they don't have any fencers that compete. \

The Pacific Coast Sectionals (held in Vegas) had the highest numbers it has ever seen with men’s epee topping the list with 92 entries. The men's team event had 16 teams with Red Rock seated first. We lost to Golden Gate Fencing from San Francisco in the gold medal round but come on; we're talking about Golden Gate. They have two National coaches over there! Besides, their a great bunch of guys, we love em.

So my suggestion to you sir would be to try all 4 clubs and pick the one that you feel will give you the most bang for your buck. And no, my website is not hype

[oiuyt]

I would have to say a very high percentage (95% or higher) of the Nevada USFA members did.

This was a high enough number as to be completely unbelievable based on my (admittedly in very different parts of the country) experience. Glancing at the division championships results I see 60 events entries (I didn't bother checking for people fencing multiple events, presumably the actual number of fencers was slightly below that number). According to last year's USFA membership report NV division had 171 members. 95%? Not quite. Still, looks like a very high percentage of active competitors did fence, which isn't bad. Wish that were always true in my division.

Looking at the results, one thing immediately struck me as a potential problem however. It appears that you use the same competition as a qualifier for all of the various events (within that weapon) at nationals. I know the USFA Ops Manual specifies that the D2 qualifiers MUST be limited to C and under fencers. I assume that there are similar restrictions for U16 and Y14. You simply are not ALLOWED to use an open tournament to determine D2 qualification. Now perhaps I'm reading what's posted wrong (I didn't bother spending much time on the results site, and I certainly didn't understand some of the reasoning behind the numbers of D2/D3 qualifiers in a few cases, so I could just be confused), but it sure seemed that that was what was going on.

-B :)

[fencerX]

Wow -- the Nevada Division qualifier results are pretty inscrutable.

Also, some other strange looking qual results -- for example, the Nevada div women's foil qualifier had 7 entries and qualifed all 7 to Div III. How on earth did that work?

Oiuyt -- I see some divisions take the top 25% of Div II eligible fencers and qual them for 1) Div II and 2) for Div III [if they are also D or under]. Then those divisions take a second pass through the results, take the next 25% of the (total) eligible fencers and mark those who meet the D and under criterion as qualified for Div III.

Other divisions only make one 25% pass through the result of their qualifiers. Which is the correct algorithm for div II and div III summer national qualifiers? Everyone seems to be reading the same qualifying info, but they're ending up wih different interpretations.

[edew]

oiuyt,

You're quite right. Muy not kosher. Folks, the main reason that you can't run qualifiers to Summer Nationals like so (see Nevada Website ) is because there are potential conflicts of interest.

For example in the Men's Epee, there are 7 fencers who are not eligible for Division II (having either As or Bs). They can, if they want, slum it and help out a teammate or knock down some other club's fencer from qualifying. It doesn't affect their qualifying eligibility to nationals. I'm not making any sort of allegations on anyone's fencing abilities, but Mchael McKee, an A02, and Eli Delgado, an A03, finished 11th and 13th respectively in a 20-person field. Is that typical, considering that 3 Es and 2 Cs finished higher?

Also, it appears that there are 13 who are eligible for Div 2 and Alvin Lim, who was a C04 at the start of the event (the classification at the start of the event is what counts) is not listed as qualified for Div II. Further, Ric Kulik and Dale Hargis should fence off for 3rd, as required by USFA (all qualifying positions must be fenced off, even if they don't affect the qualifying outcome...a rule that I don't quite understand the rationale for; maybe there's a way to sneak in a fencer here or there that USFA don't want abused).

The presentation of the qualifiers is also not very clear. In the Men's Epee, it's claimed that 3 qualify to Division II (should be 4 since there were 13 eligible, but since there were As and Bs, it's not clear how exactly to count it). But 6 people are listed as qualified to Division II in ME. Did they qualify some other way? Who qualified via the division and who qualified via some other route? Usually, if one is already qualified by the time of the competition, it's noted as auto in the list.

Fencers must explain, when submitting the entry form to Summer Nationals, how they qualified. Not all fencers know how exactly they qualified, especially the Div II/III-level and Y14/U16-aged fencers. If they make a mistake, might USFA tell them they're not eligible? USFA must, otherwise making accomodations for "mistakes" is ripe for abuse.

[edew]

Wow -- the Nevada Division qualifier results are pretty inscrutable.

Also, some other strange looking qual results -- for example, the Nevada div women's foil qualifier had 7 entries and qualifed all 7 to Div III. How on earth did that work?

Oiuyt -- I see some divisions take the top 25% of Div II eligible fencers and qual them for 1) Div II and 2) for Div III [if they are also D or under]. Then those divisions take a second pass through the results, take the next 25% of the (total) eligible fencers and mark those who meet the D and under criterion as qualified for Div III.

Other divisions only make one 25% pass through the result of their qualifiers. Which is the correct algorithm for div II and div III summer national qualifiers? Everyone seems to be reading the same qualifying info, but they're ending up wih different interpretations.

The correct way is 25% of the field is qualified to Division II. Those among this 25% who are eligible for Division III becomes automatic to Division III. Now, make a second pass and count from the field who are eligible for Division III. Take 25% of that. This number is the number that will qualify to the Division III. Of course, you don't count the automatics (those who qualify to Division II) as part of the 25% to Division III.

Supppose you have the following results:

1. Alan A..........C04
2. Ben B...........D04
3. Charles C......D05
4. David D.........E05
5. Eric E ..........C05
6. Frank F..........U
7. George G.......D04
8. Harry H.........D05
9. Ian I..............C05
10. Jack J...........C03
11. Ken K...........U
12. Larry L.........E05
13. Mike M.........E03
14. Nick N.........C02
15. Oscar O.......U
16. Peter P........D03
17. Quint Q.......U
18. Rick R........U
19. Sam S........U
20. Tom T.........C04
21. Uriel U.......E03

Then your 25% of 21, rounded up, is 6. So 6 people are eligible for Division II. They are Alan A through Frank F. Ben, Charles, David, and Frank are then automatics to Division III. There were 6 Cs, so there were 15 eligible for Division III. 25% of 15, rounded up is 4. The next four Ds and lower are qualified for Division III: George, Harry, Ken and Larry. All who are of veteran age (40+) automatically qualify for their respective veteran-aged events.

Some divisions run their veteran qualifiers as part of the "division championships", which is all right, but I don't think that veterans who then compete in the division's Div II/III/Vet qualifiers can also qualify to veterans. I think one can only qualify once from a division, even if it means showing up. In other words, the division cannot run multiple qualifiers.

Some divisions run their Division II and Division III separate, which is all right as well, but a heck of a nightmare (logistically running the events on different days and such). If so, then those who are eligible to fence in Division III and did not qualify for Division II in the Division II event cannot qualify for Division III, even if they barely missed the cut (being a George or Harry or Ken or Larry, say).

[fencerX]

The correct way is 25% of the field is qualified to Division II. Those among this 25% who are eligible for Division III becomes automatic to Division III. Now, make a second pass and count from the field who are eligible for Division III. Take 25% of that. This number is the number that will qualify to the Division III. Of course, you don't count the automatics (those who qualify to Division II) as part of the 25% to Division III.

So if a division starts with 6 "U" classified fencers in a combined Div II/III qualifying event, then by the method above all 6 qualifiy for Division III nationals and the top three also qualify for Div II. Correct?

I've seen some divisions that would qualify only the top 3 (for both II/III) while the next 3 would not be marked as qualified for III. The confusion seems to come in as to whether the new qualifiers to Div II in the event who are D and under take up any of the number of "eligible entries" for Div III or not.

[edew]

From the USFA website:

Qualifying path for the 2005 Division IIII National Championships:

1. Qualifiers for the 2005 Division II National Championships

2. If a separate Division III Qualifying competition is held, then place in the top 25% (with a minimum of 3) of the 2005 Division III Qualifying competition. If a separate Division III Qualifying competition is not held, then place in the top 25% (with a minimum of 3) among the total number of "D", "E", or "U" fencers competing in the 2005 Division II Qualifying competition.

So, in most cases, where the Division II qualifiers and Division III qualifiers are the same, then what I wrote several posts above would be correct. In the rare case where a division chooses to run a separate Division III qualifiers, then those who would place such as George, Harry, Ken and Larry, would not qualify to Div III at the Division II qualifiers, but Ben, Charles, David and Frank would be autos at the Division III qualifiers (if they haven't classificationed themselves out of the running by finishing too high at the Division II or some subsequent event prior to the Division III qualifiers).

[oiuyt]

So if a division starts with 6 "U" classified fencers in a combined Div II/III qualifying event, then by the method above all 6 qualifiy for Division III nationals and the top three also qualify for Div II. Correct?

I've seen some divisions that would qualify only the top 3 (for both II/III) while the next 3 would not be marked as qualified for III. The confusion seems to come in as to whether the new qualifiers to Div II in the event who are D and under take up any of the number of "eligible entries" for Div III or not.

Yes, 1st-3rd would be D2 and D3 qualified, 4th-6th would be D3 qualified. What Eric posted is correct. There is still continued confusion about this despite the fact that there were no changes from last season and I suspect a number of divisions are posting/announcing the wrong information. New England (my division, at least for another slightly over 2 months), originally posted incorrectly (using a single pass rather than a double pass). I caught the mistake (don't ask why I bother reading through D2/D3 results for a division I no longer live in and wasn't interested in fencing in), the rule was clarified with the national office, and the corrected results have been posted.

Again, what Eric wrote is correct and is a good example of how the system currently should work.

-B :)

[Purple Fencer]

Supppose you have the following results:

1. Alan A..........C04
2. Ben B...........D04
3. Charles C......D05
4. David D.........E05
5. Eric E ..........C05
6. Frank F..........U
7. George G.......D04
8. Harry H.........D05
9. Ian I..............C05
10. Jack J...........C03
11. Ken K...........U
12. Larry L.........E05
13. Mike M.........E03
14. Nick N.........C02
15. Oscar O.......U
16. Peter P........D03
17. Quint Q.......U
18. Rick R........U
19. Sam S........U
20. Tom T.........C04
21. Uriel U.......E03

Yeah.....that's about where I'd end up, regardless of weapon! (and yes, Eric...I knew you didn't really mean me....but hey, it's so true!)

[mfp]

There is still continued confusion about this despite the fact that there were no changes from last season and I suspect a number of divisions are posting/announcing the wrong information. New England (my division, at least for another slightly over 2 months), originally posted incorrectly (using a single pass rather than a double pass).

I took a quick look at the web sites for several divisions and out of the 9 sites I checked, I found 3 divisions that used the single pass Q2/Q3 approach, 3 divisions that used the double pass approach and 3 divisions that haven't posted any 2005 qualifer info.

Divisions found in my sample that used the single pass Q2/Q3 approach :

1) The San Diego Division

http://www.sandiegofencing.com/usfa/splash.htm


2) The SoCal Division

http://socalfence.org/html/results/2...2ejtfe_ba.html

3) The CenCal Division

http://www.cencalfencing.com/images/...Q2005plain.xls


Divisions found in my sample that used the double pass approach for Q2/Q3 qualifiers:

1) The NorCal Division

2) The Western Washington Division

3) The Arizona Division

Good to see everyone's on the same page

I wonder what the percentage of all the USFA divisions are using each approach. Or how many divisions do something completely strange like Nevada did. Does the USFA actually check what the divisions submit?

On the original topic of the Red Rocks Training Center, it's a very nice facility. But as Frank suggests, check out all the clubs and find the one you like best.

[fencerX]

Divisions found in my sample that used the single pass Q2/Q3 approach [...]

I know of another division you can add to your list of the (non-Oiuyt/Edew compliant) single pass Div II/Div III qual method users, the Orange Coast Division.

www.ocfencing.org/030605qual.htm

Using the oiuyt-edew method, OC would have qualified 2 additional MF fencers for Div III, 1 additional WF fencer for Div III, 1 additional ME fencer for Div III and 1 additional MS fencer for Div III. Oops.

From now on I'll just refer the oiuyt-edew double pass Div II/III qualification method users as the "Blue" divisions while calling the single pass method users the "Red" divisions. For a process that really should be uniform across the country, it's disturbing to see the map is about half Red and half Blue so far.

As for the Nevada Division II/III qualifier, that I'll just call "wrong". Letting As and Bs fence in a "Div II/III qualifier"? Cripes.

[FrankV]

[QUOTE=mfp]
I wonder what the percentage of all the USFA divisions are using each approach. Or how many divisions do something completely strange like Nevada did. Does the USFA actually check what the divisions submit?
QUOTE]

Now that's a great question that needs to be answered. Since Tanya Brown (Nev. Division Sec-Tres) has been doing the Nevada Division quals. for many years no one really ever questioned her results or how she came up with them. Since she is on the USFA's tournament comm. we all just assumed she knew what she was doing. Only she can answer your question on how she came up with her numbers.

As for your attempt to say people 'gave' touches or bouts away so others could advance Eric, you could not be more wrong. You were not there as I was. It was a dogfight. NO ONE wanted to lose for a new A05 was at stake for the lucky winner and EVERYONE wanted it. I put Mike McKee out at 15-13 in the first round of the DE's. And he went down fighting for every touch. He wanted to beat me so bad even I could feel it. The rest of the tournament went the same way.