An A here, a C there...

[Bugaboo]

Does anyone perceive a discrepancy in fencer skill levels and USFA ratings in different regions of the country? In other words, is a C-rated fencer on one coast of about the same ability as a C-rated fencer elsewhere?

Just looking for opinions. I don't get out of the state as often as I'd like to find out for myself.

[space_cadet]

: |




[This message has been edited by space_cadet (edited 07-03-2001).]

[mango fever]

dear bug: i would guess that there would be a natural difference and that would depend on the kind of competition available in your own division first, then you meet on the even playing field of the nationals, and get tested yet again.

[scarlet_woman156k]

Of course there's going to be a difference (big or slight) in skill level with people who are ranked the same but come from different divisions, sections, regions, and countries. Resources (the level of coaching, other highly ranker fencers to fence with, time to practice, etc) are the biggest factors that contribute to this.

And that's what I think.

[edew]

Suppose there are 60 fencers in 10 pools of 6. One of the top A's lose one bout in the pools, while all the other top A's win all their bouts. That top A who lost one is now seeded at best 11th going into the table. He will meet the 7th seed in the round of 16, and if all goes well, he'll finish somewhere around 11th. There's a big difference between 11th and possibly 1st. So even though the first and the eleventh place finishers may be comparable in skill, one little loss in the early rounds or such will seriously affect your standing. Supposed that top A who lost one also had close victories, 5-3, 5-4, 5-3, etc. His indicators could put him behind all the other 4-1 finishers, and he could conceivably be seeded 20th going into the DEs, and finish that low.

That's why the discrepancies you see are not really discrepancies. It's just that the letter classification system is a very coarse categorizing system. Then, we go back to the old rehash of revising the system to have a points system, etc.

Before we go down that path, let me mention the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: you can't get 100% precision in measurements. Thus, for fencing, or math SATs, or high-school standardized testing, or USA Today polls, or Florida balloting, there will always be some margins of error, and the predictive value of the measurement will always have an uncertainty value to it.

What happens when you use a very fine categorizing system (say, a numerical rating system), is that fencers will bounce all over the place (within some range, of course). Then, the fineness of the measurement presents more future uncertainty: the fencer is a "94" one day, a "89" another day, a "83" another day (nevermind what scale I'm using -- it's hypothetical).

If you use a coarse categorization system (like a letter system), then future uncertainty is minimized in place for present uncertainty: you have 10 A's in the event, at most one of them will win.

As for answering whether C-rated fencers in one coast is better than the other, we'll find out at Nationals when they fence in the Div II events, the Div III events, and so on.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Bugaboo:
Does anyone perceive a discrepancy in fencer skill levels and USFA ratings in different regions of the country? In other words, is a C-rated fencer on one coast of about the same ability as a C-rated fencer elsewhere?

Just looking for opinions. I don't get out of the state as often as I'd like to find out for myself.

First of all, tournaments are rated; fencers are classified.

And, yes, since you can take 15 people off the street; let them pay their dues and fence each other, at the end of the day, someone MUST win, and therefore be classified as a 'D' - there are certainly going to be differences in ability that will show up whenever people mix in different circles (no pun intended).

This is why regional fencing (as opposed to local fencing) is so important, and needs to be considered in the development of both national schedule, as well as local calenders; it's no mystery why regional tournaments have declined since the advent of the expanded NAC calender, which has had several predictible, and self-fulfilling results; regarding the people who particiate, their consistancy, and inconsistency at various levels.

The 'party line' is that modifying the A-B-C system in the 80's has been a failure, and that a new system is needed, because supposedly higher classified, and often nationally ranked fencers are often upset in D-E's by 'lower-level' fencers, and that the system is not reliably reflecting the people's relative abilities.

Well, you can change the system all you want, and the net result will be the same: some people will carry a tag that they can't really live up to, and some people will be making progress and developing their skills (this IS, after all a learning-oriented sport), and whatever label you apply, will be rapidly superseded by their development.

Now this effect WOULD be mitigated, somewhat, by ANY system which takes into account more data, rather than measuring peak performances, which is what our current system does; it only takes into account, your best performance in the last 4 years (kind of - since you get demoted after 4 years, unless you equal that same performance).

NOTE that ANY system, (or combination of systems - which is what we really have now; a combination of 3 systems) no matter HOW it is devised, and implemented, will still suffer from the fact that this performance is interactive, and people improve at it, but also very dependent on physical conditions, and people get sick, and fatigued, and in any number of ways vary in their abilities from event to event.

ADDITIONALLY, remember that ANY system will not be able to 'predict' what will happen when competitors do not participate in it for significant periods of time, and then jump back in: A significant example occured last year, at the 2000 Midwest Sectionals, when Michael MaCahey started fencing again.

For those of who are more recently coming to the sport, Michael was a foilist on the 1984 Olympic team, as well as several other national teams; but quit fencing in ~1985, and was not a member for numerous intervening years.

Sadly, (for the fencers in his pool) when he called the national office, to inquire what his status should be, the person responded that, since he hadn't kept up his membership, they had nothing on him, so he should be listed as unclassified. (i.e. - they didn't save his classification for him, which is sad, because the classification is as much for the other competitors, as it is for you, and it's too bad for the guys who got sandbagged in his pool, since under the old system, he would have been classified as an XA, which would still have put him above all the B's - unless they had national points, although this might have been a overstating his abilities a tiny bit - but just a bit.)

Under the current classification system, (which was implemtented AFTER he quit fencing), Michael should have been classified as an A86, until August, 1990, when he would have been demoted to B90; then C94, and finally; D98.

But, since, Micheal had not even been to any local competitions in the year prior to this, he had not a datum to provide a direct input, and since the organizers weren't really very much on the ball either, they didn't notice this abnormal, and erroneous situation.

After watching him fence a warm-up bout for 5 seconds, I knew he would probaly end up in the top 4 of the 30 or so men foilists, which proved to be the result; despite his understating his abilities (I talked to him, both before, and after the event), the man, in fact, seemed to have lost weight since I saw in the national finals in '84 (oddly enough, also in Illinois), and he could still move, and fast; he made a good showing, posting a result that now classifies him as a 'C', and a strong one; I have little doubt that, had he gone to even a local B-rated event before-hand, and been 'properly' classified there as a 'D', he would probably come into the sectionals classified as a 'C', or better, and would most likely left as a 'B'.

The one thing Micheal WAS right about was how much his back hurt! (of course, we were both hoping that would get better if he practiced a bit more regularly.)

So, keep that in mind, next time you ask someone how they are classified!

Fencing = Fun!

Chris