Awarding E ratings in A1+B4 events

[Sciurus Rex]

According to the USFA classification reference chart, at <a href="http://www.USFencing.org/Documents/Rules/OpsMan/Class.asp" target="_blank">http://www.USFencing.org/Documents/Rules/OpsMan/Class.asp</a> :

An A1-ranked event requires at least 15 fencers, which must include at least 2 As, 2 Bs and 2 Cs.
The top nine fencers are awarded ratings, from A to D. But no Es are awarded.

A B4-ranked event requires at least 64 fencers, which must include at least 24 Cs and 12 Ds.
The top 32 fencers are awarded ratings, from B to E.

Assuming that both ranking criteria are met (i.e. rated fencers finishing in the top-8 and top-12), it's possible to combine the two ranked events so that additional fencers in the bottom of the top 32 positions receive their E ratings. Otherwise, in a straight A1 event, they get nothing.

So let's say an event draws 64 fencers including 8 As, 8 Bs, 12 Cs and 12 Ds. That's enough people for an A8-ranked event, but not enough high ratings. So it defaults to an A1 event. Bummer.

Good news, though! Those six extra As and six Bs can also be counted under the "12 Cs or higher" clause. So you've got a B4 event running concurrently.

To activate both award schemes, however, you've got to have at least 2 As and 2 Bs finish in the top 8 positions, in addition to 4 Cs in the top 8 and 4 Ds in the top 12.

An example would be already-rated fencers finishing (running from 1st to 12th): A B C A B C C C D D D D.

In such a case, 1st place is awarded an A, 2nd-4th are awarded Bs, 5th-8th get Cs, 9th-16th get Ds, and 17th-32nd get Es.

Is there any argument with this? The published guidelines do not preclude two ranking schemes being applied at the same time to determine rating awards.

[edew]

Look at some USFA NAC results, especially the junior and cadet NAC results. Giving out split (joined?) classifications is done all the time. Many Junior NAC events have A1/B4 ratings, and the finishers get exactly as you prescribed.

[Sciurus Rex]

Thanks, Edew. That's what I thought. But a recent event organizer was very reluctant to award the Es that way (I'm not sure he ever did), even after a few people explained it to him.

[LeftyMutantChild]

Hmm. While we're on the subject, I'm a little curious. If you need A rated fencers to make an A rated tournament, how did anyone ever get one in the first place?

[DJ Apostrophe]

If you look at the bottom of the classification chart on the USFA's site... you will notice that it says the following:
"Division I National Championships are always Group A8 events.
Division I-A National Championships are always Group A4 events.
Division II National Championships are always Group B4 events.
Division II North American Cups are always Group B4 events.
Division III National Championships are always Group C4 events.
Division III North American Cups are always Group C4 events. "
that would be your answer

[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: DJ Apostrophe ]</p>

[Peach]

That was the kicker for women's sabre--we didn't have a Division I Championships for a long time so we didn't have any A's, so we couldn't have Division I Championships . . .

[quote]Originally posted by LeftyMutantChild:
<strong>Hmm. While we're on the subject, I'm a little curious. If you need A rated fencers to make an A rated tournament, how did anyone ever get one in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>

[edew]

[quote]Originally posted by LeftyMutantChild:
<strong>Hmm. While we're on the subject, I'm a little curious. If you need A rated fencers to make an A rated tournament, how did anyone ever get one in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You need two A's, two B's, and two C's in the event (minimum 15 fencers). You need two A's, two B's in the final eight. Basically, you're not requiring that one of the two A's win it.

[DJ Apostrophe]

edew, he is saying if there are no As ... how can you make As... think about it... you have a pool of 1200 mens sabre fencers in division x (dont we wish), even if all 1200 are Bs and they all enter the same tournament... the winner doesnt get an A... they get a B... thus... how can you make A's without A's... its like when you used to have to have stuffit expander for the mac in order to download the new version of stuffit expander... without having them... you cant get them... at least... i believe that is what he is saying <img src="graemlins/jawa.gif" border="0" alt="[Jawa]" />

[Zelda]

Circular logic at its most circular!

[edew]

I thought he was referring to getting new A's now that the system is in place, not the initial conditions of how it started.

Many years ago, those who qualify for the Olympics were automatic A's. Those who took top 6 (or so) in the Nationals earned A's. And those A's stuck with you forever. They wear out their welcome now, but many years ago, an A was an A for the life of the fencer. And it was possible to earn A's without having A's in the event, like the Nationals.

[its_me_mango]

i'm not rated, but i have a question so, out of 5,000 competetors, the top 6 at the nationals get a's and then as they get better as the years go on, they lose their ratings, then how can a fencing master hang onto his credentials? it must be impossible, it's totally impossible to compete and run a salle? what do they do? <img src="graemlins/fett.gif" border="0" alt="[The Fett]" />

[veeco]

It still is possible. If you finish in the top 8 at Div I Nationals, you will get an A. And if you finish in the top 4 at Div IA, you will get an A.

Therefore it is possible to get an A in a tournament where there aren't any.

It makes sense then to award only A's in a tournament where there are 2 A's. How could you claim to be an A, if you can't beat any?

[Purple Fencer]

[quote]Originally posted by veeco:
<strong>It still is possible. If you finish in the top 8 at Div I Nationals, you will get an A. And if you finish in the top 4 at Div IA, you will get an A.

Therefore it is possible to get an A in a tournament where there aren't any.

It makes sense then to award only A's in a tournament where there are 2 A's. How could you claim to be an A, if you can't beat any?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Good point. One of my clubmates went from a foil U (when he started 18 months ago) to earning his "A" a couple of weeks ago. He had to go through both "A"s to get it...Robbie Carillo to get into the gold medal bout, then he beat Jamie Douraghy 15-14 to get his "A".

Edew, you've fenced him before, at last year's PCCs...Victor Cervantes from SwordPlay (SoCal), coached by Alphonzo Carter. The director for the gold bout was Michael D'Asaro, Jr., so you KNOW it was a quality win, Jamie being the devious SOB he is!

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the Div II NAC in Reno when people see an "A" at the top of the seeding list...THAT'LL take the wind out of some sails!

[edew]

[quote]Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<strong>i'm not rated, but i have a question so, out of 5,000 competetors, the top 6 at the nationals get a's and then as they get better as the years go on, they lose their ratings, then how can a fencing master hang onto his credentials? it must be impossible, it's totally impossible to compete and run a salle? what do they do? <img src="graemlins/fett.gif" border="0" alt="[The Fett]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Fencing masters need not have "A" ratings (as a competitor). Heck, some fencing coaches and masters never competed seriously in their whole life. That's the way it is. Some people decide early on in their fencing career to be a coach/master and go at that.

Very few coaches are top competitors, running a club at the same time. I guess Zaddick is one, Ed Kaihatsu is a top competitor, and a coach, but he isn't running a club, just gives lessons. That may be what Zaddick does as well (i.e., isn't doing the numbers, the marketing, the lesson plans, the training regimens, the recruiting, etc.)

[its_me_mango]

thank you e.dew. that is the right answer, and to the other person, about the idea that all a's need to beat all other a's, i don't think so, think about it, all a's have the same rating, so they're equally talented, so it doesn't necessarily follow that they will all be able to out fence each other.

[BarryTice]

Relating to the first question in this thread, the 2000.09 revision of the Operations Manual says:

"If a competition qualifies as more than one group (i.e., Group A1 and Group B4), each fencer will earn the higher classification to which that fencer is entitled. For example, if a copetition qualifies as Group A1 and as Group B4, the winner earns an "A", as the Group A1 award is higher for that place; the fencer who finishes eighth earns a "C", as the Group B4 award is higher for that place."
-- Chapter IV, section 6.

-- Barry Tice

[edew]

[quote]Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<strong>thank you e.dew. that is the right answer, and to the other person, about the idea that all a's need to beat all other a's, i don't think so, think about it, all a's have the same rating, so they're equally talented, so it doesn't necessarily follow that they will all be able to out fence each other. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't say that all A's are equally talented. Again, this is another example of putting too much assumptions on what an A classification indicates. An A classification means that the fencer finished sufficiently high at some sufficiently tough tournament. That's it. A-ratings, in particular (over B's, C's, etc.) has no upper bound. I have an A. So does Salvatore Sanzo, if he chooses to compete in the US. Believe me, there's no equal talent there. (I'll kick that puny italian *** .)