Large non-NAC tournaments

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by Peach

Here's the North American list of annual events mentioned in this thread so far, plus some other annual ones I know of

I tried to expand on Peach's list with locations and months for the tournaments. I'm sure that specifics/corrections will be forthcoming- perhaps updates to the Calendar here on f.net?

Amazon epee (women's epee), Washington, DC, June
Big Apple Open, New York, NY, September
Canadian Selection Circuits, (multi, see Canadian fencing calendar)
Charm City, Baltimore, MD, December
Cherry Blossom Open, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, April
Crescent City Open, New Orleans, LA, March
Crown of Texas, Amarillo, TX, June
Duel in the Desert, Las Vegas, NV, January
Liberty Cup tournaments (sabre), New York, NY, June
London Heroes, London, Ontario, Canada, January
Long Beach Invitational, Long Beach, CA, October
Longhorn, Austin, TX, October
Mr. Ma Cup, Cherry Hill, NJ, June
Nick Toth Invitational, Colorado Springs, CO, September
Phoenix Cup, Mesa, AZ, May
Pomme de Terre, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, June
Pouj, San Marcos, TX, January
Remenyik, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, October
Rose Condon, Bossier City, LA, January
Temple Open (any collegiate fencers), Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, November
The Big One (New England collegiate fencers), Smith College, Northampton, MA, November
Tournoi Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, May
Veterans Challenge (veteran fencers), Boston, MA, September
Virginia Hangover Open, The Plains, VA, January
Virginia Kickoff Open, Richmond, VA, September

[R. Exnicios]

The list is very nicely done. If I get a chance I'll plug it into a spread sheet.

Cheers

R

[Peach]

Very nice!

Minor nitpicks:

Veterans Challenge is held at Boston Fencing Club, but that club is in Waltham, MA.
There is usually more than one Liberty Cup at the FC.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Peach

Any comments? Events to add? Rankings?

Let me chime in our two big events here in the Seattle area:

The Leon Auriol Open, always late-Sept/early-Oct (this year Sept 24-25)
The Mid-Winter Open (soon to be renamed "The Battle in Seattle"), Late Jan/early Feb

Both events draw strong fencers from around the Pacific NW including Portland and Vancouver, BC. We hope to see more people from out of the area attend over the next few years!

Dan

[darius]

Here you go. I made an Excel file with dates (months, currently, but I had dates for the NACs and DITD), places, information links, etc.

darius

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by fencergal33

...
New ratings are earned in almost every large tournament. If no one ever earned new ratings, what would be the incentive to come to high level tournaments, as opposed to local crappy ones?

One of those guys that jumped from C to A was one of my teammates, and I know one of the others pretty well. These people fenced very hard for those ratings, and really and truly earned them that day. They beat people that were seeded higher than them in most cases, and managed to outfence their opponents.

I'm not really sure why a lot of people feel the need to criticize such a great tournament. If you don't agree with the ratings or placings, try to run an A4 yourself.

I agree. The classification system is setup so that any fencer can earn an "A" by placing high in a tough competition. There has been a lot of debate as to whether or not this is a good idea, but it’s what we have in place at the moment. If the rules allow an unclassified fencer to earn an “A” by climbing over a few unclassified fencers, a C, then a weak “A” at an A2 event with 15 fencers, then someone who, in a 15-touch bout, defeats a fencer with an a few World Cup/World Championship titles and an Olympic medal on her résumé certainly deserves an “A.” It was great that the organizer of the Nellya event were able to give due credit to the fencers who flew from the other side of the globe to attend. This provision also makes the seeding more even. How would you like to face Miss. Jacobson (either one) and someone else in the FIE's top 100 (or a foreign Olympian) in your first two pool bouts, while fencers in the other pools have to worry about only one FIE-ranked fencer before the DEs? In an A4 event, it is impossible to earn your "A" unless you place ahead of at least 4 As and several Bs. This is not usually an easy feat! Anyone who is still standing after the round of 16 at a big event where more than 1/3 of the fencers are As or Bs needs to be given an "A", regardless of their rating before the event or prior experience. This makes future tournament not only stronger, but fairer.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by darius

Here you go. I made an Excel file with dates (months, currently, but I had dates for the NACs and DITD), places, information links, etc.

darius

For those who want to add info to the spreadsheet. LBI is http://www.ocfencing.org/lbi_home.htm

It might be nice to put down the level of competition. LBI is very strong in Epee with A4 for mixed and A2 for the ladies, down to Sabre, which is not strong. The mixed is usually only a B2, while the ladies is only a C2. The Foil is in-between.

[OROD]

OMG, I can preregister for the LBI on AskFred?

Holy f**ing crap, does this mean the rest of the PCS might actually move into the 21st century and start using AskFred as well?

God I hope so.


.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by fencergal33

I'm not really sure why a lot of people feel the need to criticize such a great tournament. If you don't agree with the ratings or placings, try to run an A4 yourself.

Uh, I think the point some people were making was that while it was a very strong tournament, it perhaps was an error to classify it as an A4 event. It might have been more properly classified as an A3 event.

The criteria for a USFA A4 classified event say nothing about "great tournamentness", however the criteria do include requiring 12 or more A classifed fencers -- a criterion the event might not have met. Seeding several fencers as As isn't necessarily the same as their having As. And even if they could likely quickly earn As, or the BoD might grant them As (if the board took that explicit action), that still doesn't mean they have the As.


The event certainly qualifies as large, strong, non-NAC tournament event though ... unlike that Crown of Texas thing that Goofy slipped in to Peach's list. Despite all the spamvertising done for the Crown of Texas, its events ended up being neither large, nor particularly strong. I agree with DHCJr that it would be helpful to note the level of competition for the events on the list.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by OROD

OMG, I can preregister for the LBI on AskFred?

Holy f**ing crap, does this mean the rest of the PCS might actually move into the 21st century and start using AskFred as well?

Since the first person to register for the LBI using AskFred was the PCS section chair, that might be some sort of a sign ...

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by tkrivosh

That is what the USFA officials told me to do: look up their FIE ranking and assign them with the classification of the comparable american fencers. Since all three of them are very high on the FIE list, in fact much higher than some of the american fencers with an A ranking in the tournament,
that is what was done for this event. By the way, one of them was injured so she did not participate (neither did her ranking).

As to the female top finishers, Emily Jacobson is an Olympian and a World champion, so is it so surprizing that she beat quite a lot of males on her way to the top?


Tatiana
Nellya Fencers

We had a somewhat similar situation in 2002 with our Veterans Challenge near Boston. We had 13 fencers from Great Britain and two from Germany participating, several having just earned World Championship medals. For seeding, we looked at performance compared to US fencers whose ratings we did know.

Afterwards we had discussions with Carla Mae Richards about classifications earned. We could not take advantage of these classification equivalents in determining the strength of the competition. We could only use the foreign fencers in determining the number of participants.

We will have foreign participants again this year. Which is why we scheduled it a week after the Tampa World Championships. So come and see how well you can do against World Class Veterans.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Afterwards we had discussions with Carla Mae Richards about classifications earned. We could not take advantage of these classification equivalents in determining the strength of the competition. We could only use the foreign fencers in determining the number of participants.

K, this looks like an answer to the question I was posing. At least according to Carla-Mae last year, the fencers can be seeded appropriately but don't count as classifications towards the rating of the tournament. Which, incidently, means that the Nellya Tournament with 12 A's and 11 B's (excluding the 2 japanese fencers, and by my count, which may not be correct) would be an A3. Wes Newkirk still earned an A, but Kevin Ziechmann and Bryan Cheney would only earn B's. Sam Roukas would only reearn his (already current) C, etc. on down the list.

Next question is who tells the fencers that they didn't earn the classification changes that they think they did.

Next, next question is whether or not National Office figures things out correctly.

Mmmm, looking at the round results. Marina Kraujalis and Jacqueline Leval are both listed as not scoring a single touch. Knowing both of them, this seems beyond belief. Is this a pair of injury withdrawls that was incorrectly handled?

-B :)

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

K, this looks like an answer to the question I was posing. At least according to Carla-Mae last year, the fencers can be seeded appropriately but don't count as classifications towards the rating of the tournament. Which, incidently, means that the Nellya Tournament with 12 A's and 11 B's (excluding the 2 japanese fencers, and by my count, which may not be correct) would be an A3. Wes Newkirk still earned an A, but Kevin Ziechmann and Bryan Cheney would only earn B's. Sam Roukas would only reearn his (already current) C, etc. on down the list.

Next question is who tells the fencers that they didn't earn the classification changes that they think they did.

Next, next question is whether or not National Office figures things out correctly.

Mmmm, looking at the round results. Marina Kraujalis and Jacqueline Leval are both listed as not scoring a single touch. Knowing both of them, this seems beyond belief. Is this a pair of injury withdrawls that was incorrectly handled?

-B

So the bottom line is that it was not an a4 tournament, but an a3?

[Padawan]

Unless things have changed in the northeast don't the Canadian fencers have their A's, B's and C's count for rating purposes for tournaments such as the PDT and other events in the Northeast. It may have changed over the years but I know that when we go to Canada if we earn a rating in their events we have just submitted it to the USFA for clarification.

Once again this was back in the mid 90's so of course things may have changed.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

K, this looks like an answer to the question I was posing. At least according to Carla-Mae last year, the fencers can be seeded appropriately but don't count as classifications towards the rating of the tournament. Which, incidently, means that the Nellya Tournament with 12 A's and 11 B's (excluding the 2 japanese fencers, and by my count, which may not be correct) would be an A3. Wes Newkirk still earned an A, but Kevin Ziechmann and Bryan Cheney would only earn B's. Sam Roukas would only reearn his (already current) C, etc. on down the list.

Next question is who tells the fencers that they didn't earn the classification changes that they think they did.

Next, next question is whether or not National Office figures things out correctly.

Actually, the first question is does the National Office even bother trying? And how can the National Office figure things out correctly, seeing as the USFA classification change form solely lists the supposed new classifications?

While some organizers do seem to provide supporting documentation, such as a link to results on a website, it doesn't seem to be required. Even in cases where there has been further documentation, the national office has failed to properly check things, or seem to care.

In one case I know about, an event was incorrectly classified because the bout committee didn't pay attention to a "rated fencers must finish" criterion. One of the four fencers improperly listed as getting a new higher classification on the results pointed the error out to the bout committee right after the results were posted at the event. The fencer also emailed the chair of the division when the results were posted to the event website a week later still containing the incorrect classifications. Finally the fencer also faxed the USFA back a note on the correction form when the new USFA card arrived with the incorrect higher classification listed. All of that was months ago and the USFA still has the 4 affected fencers listed with the improperly awarded higher classifcations.

So again, does the USFA office even bother trying checking?

Shoot, the National Office didn't even bother checking their classification change form template itself for errors -- notice the two typos from their form below:

Submit all classifcation changes to your Division Secretary and the USFA National Office within two of the tournament.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by mfp

Actually, the first question is does the National Office even bother trying? And how can the National Office figure things out correctly, seeing as the USFA classification change form solely lists the supposed new classifications?

While some organizers do seem to provide supporting documentation, such as a link to results on a website, it doesn't seem to be required. Even in cases where there has been further documentation, the national office has failed to properly check things, or seem to care.

In one case I know about, an event was incorrectly classified because the bout committee didn't pay attention to a "rated fencers must finish" criterion. One of the four fencers improperly listed as getting a new higher classification on the results pointed the error out to the bout committee right after the results were posted at the event. The fencer also emailed the chair of the division when the results were later posted to the event website a week later still containing the incorrect classification. Finally the fencer also faxed the USFA back a note on the correction form when the new USFA card arrived with the incorrect higher classification listed. All of that was months ago and the USFA still has the 4 affected fencers listed with the improperly awarded higher classifcations.

So again, does the USFA office even bother trying checking?

Shoot, the National Office didn't even bother checking their classification change form template itself for errors -- notice the two typos from their form below:

Submit all classification changes to your Division Secretary and the USFA National Office within two of the tournament.

My impression has always been that the national office trusts the local tournament's bout committee to correctly report classification changes for new C, D, and E classifications; they simply process the changes that are listed on the form. Though I have no personal knowledge of impropriety, I have heard of some people abusing this laxity by intentionally mis-reporting new classifications. This is why our Division prohibits clubs from reporting new classifications; reporting can only be done via the Division Secretary after she reviews the final standings for each event.

However, the Operations Manual states that the National Office has to "confirm" all A and B classifications that are earned at any tournament. I am not sure how they do this, but my guess is that the tournament's Bout Committee has to submit the change form and a complete list of all the fencers and where they finished. The National Office can then confirm the classification for all of the U.S. fencers, and confirm that everyone is a USFA (or FIE) member (or that everyone at least filled out a membership form at the event.) This data will clearly show how the event is rated and who "upgraded" their classification.

Who tells the fencer that he has a "B" and not an "A?" Peet has a good point in his regular disclaimers on AskFRED. The USFA is the only official custodian of this data. What the Bout Committee chairman, FRED, the Web, or anyone else tells the fencer at the tournament is unofficial until the USFA processes the change.

Bottom line for the Nellya’s competition: AFAIK, the rating for the competition has not yet been officially determined. The USFA will look at the results, the pre-tournament classifications, and will determine whether it was A3 or A4. Though the rules might say A3, it should be an A4, IMHO.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Padawan

Unless things have changed in the northeast don't the Canadian fencers have their A's, B's and C's count for rating purposes for tournaments such as the PDT and other events in the Northeast. It may have changed over the years but I know that when we go to Canada if we earn a rating in their events we have just submitted it to the USFA for clarification.

Once again this was back in the mid 90's so of course things may have changed.

It could well be that the Canadians are an exception. As I understand their system, a top percentage from the year before get A's, more get B's, etc. There is so much history between the two countries that the USFA and CFF probably do respect each other's classifications.

So if you are just on the cusp you could get an A and then not quite make it the next year.

Anybody know Carla Mae's E-mail?

[Welted 24/7]

Ah ha, so there IS a Big Apple Open this year after all. Anybody know why it wasn't there in January like it was last year?

[AntonioDelMonte]

Sectional Tourneys usually have big turnouts not as big as a NAC but for those who live in smaller divisons they work as a bigger than average tourney