Are you a "rating" hound?

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

However, seeing such enthusiasm leads me to believe, that in most cases, the hunt is worth more than the kill.

Someone's trying to sound like a giant lefty....

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

However, seeing such enthusiasm leads me to believe, that in most cases, the hunt is worth more than the kill.

Someone's trying to sound like a lefty giant....

[Inquartata]

I have become a...whatever the opposite of a "ratings hound" is. A ratingphobe?

I came to wish that I had not gotten my C, because it meant that there were fewer events open to me at NACs. As a D I had the best of all worlds: I could do Div I, II, III and Vet. Even after the C-and-above restriction for Div I came in I still had 3 events I could do. But with a C it dropped to two. And I REALLY wish I had not gotten my B, as I am now effectively reduced to Div I, where there is a cut from the pool round and I will probably get mangled every time.

Well, at least there's Veteran's. ( Though if the new age-group separation there results in fewer entrants at NACs I will be very annoyed indeed. )

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, at least there's Veteran's. ( Though if the new age-group separation there results in fewer entrants at NACs I will be very annoyed indeed. )

Well, you'll just have to get older and age into being able to do both te 40+ and 50-59 vet events at the NACs (assuming that's how it works out). Practice at aging for a few years and you should be able to get the hang of it. :)

-B :)

[Inquartata]

I'll have to burn the painting in my attic...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'll have to burn the painting in my attic...

Mmmm, I think that just affects your apparent age. Keep the painting, maintain the Adonis-like looks, and gracefully start entering both events. Still might take some years practice before you manage.

-B :)

[Inquartata]

And what if I botch it and actually get younger? What THEN, huh?

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And what if I botch it and actually get younger? What THEN, huh?

Well lucky you, then you can enter junior comps!


(There are tons of them. Too many, in my opinion. )

[noahz]

I just want to put in my 2cents and say I think the ratings system is very poor at predicting fencer ability. Also, I've too often seen fencers at all ages focus on competitive results rather than technical ability, leading to long term (read: lifelong) problems. Meanwhile, here in New York I've seen unrated fencers (yes, unrated) who could beat "A's" in practice, but couldn't acheive a rating for variety of reasons (no time/money for competitions, etc).

If anything, fencing needs a "belt" system like in other martial arts, where (if remember correctly) a fencer's ability would be judged by their technical ability rather than competitive results. Even worse are the parents who are often misled into thinking that obtaining a better rating should be the most important concern of their child.

For example, to gain a "yellow belt," the fencer would have to be able to execute some basic footwork actions (lunge, advance, retreat, etc.) correctly. By the "black belt" level, the fencer would have to execute advanced weapon-specific combos with multiple decision points (i.e. 2nd intention) etc. etc. Or, even better, perhaps they would have to fence a bout against a current "black belt" who would then offer a judgement based on their performance.

The real problem is: who would be doing the judging? Committees would have to be at the division level, with tests for rating increase being done on one day. Actually implementing this system would have all sorts of complications - both political and practical. I'm sure those with experience in other martial arts could elucidate these issues.

Of coures, there's no reason why any coach couldn't create a system like this on their own, independent of the USFA (I'm pretty sure many already have).

Or, we could switch to a numeric rating system, like in chess, that ranks fencers according to the relative strength of their peers (such as the one proposed in American Fencing a few years ago). The USFA infrastructure made this impractical, but with coming upgrades to their member database etc, such a system could become possible.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Noah, I get your point. Heres another one.

Why not restrict ratings to certain performances at national tournaments? Say, make top 32 at a div 1 NAC twice or top 16 at a junior NAC twice and you earn your A. Any scrub can make top 8 at a junior NAC if they're having a spectacular day.... but could they do it again? Not likely.

[sabreman]

>>
Well, at least there's Veteran's. ( Though if the new age-group separation there results in fewer entrants at NACs I will be very annoyed indeed. )
>>

This might reduce the number of 40-49 fencers. I know I will not keep going if there is small turn out for 40+.

It is probably time to add a 40-49 age Vet WC. In Germany they have 30 - 39 age group plus the Euro Vet Championships have 40-49. Adding 40-49 might keep more people in the sport.

[noahz]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Noah, I get your point. Heres another one.

Why not restrict ratings to certain performances at national tournaments? Say, make top 32 at a div 1 NAC twice or top 16 at a junior NAC twice and you earn your A. Any scrub can make top 8 at a junior NAC if they're having a spectacular day.... but could they do it again? Not likely.

Well, that would seem kind of redundant with the national rankings system, but seeing as many local tournament organizers don't account for national rankings in their seeding, it would be nice to get a little "*" or something next to your ranking if you earned it at an NAC.

That said, it still wouldn't solve the problem of parents agonizing over their child having a "D" rating rather than whether or not they can lunge correctly.

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Originally Posted by noahz

If anything, fencing needs a "belt" system like in other martial arts, where (if remember correctly) a fencer's ability would be judged by their technical ability rather than competitive results. Even worse are the parents who are often misled into thinking that obtaining a better rating should be the most important concern of their child.

Noah-

IMHO, I don't think it's the USFA's job to judge fencers on how pretty they look when they lunge. I know you know this better than I do, but the USFA is there primarily to support athletes who win. The rating system is based off this idea. What good is their techinical ability if they can't put a light on the machine? I think we can all name a few fencers who have terrible technique but are incredibly effective in competition. Thus, if tournaments are decided by their ability to put the light on the machine, we should atliest seed them by the same standards.

If, hypothetically, we start giving out ratings based on technical abilty, it would only seem fair to choose the winners of each bout on their technical ability i.e. ability to lunge, clean parries, strong flesh etc etc. At that point, lets make Evangelista and Gaugler in charge of the usfa, and while we're at it, promote Cfaustus to "fencing expert" on fnet.

As for the parents who are avid "ratings-hounds" for their children, i agree, it's stupid, but hey, why not? I mean, how else can they gauge their child's progress in an activity which they are pouring 1000's of $$ into?

Think of it this way: Us telling parents not to celebrate when their child earns their 'C' rating would be like Seth Kelsey telling Kathy not to celebrate over your 2nd place result.

PS - I dont know Seth Kelsey nor do I think he would ever say that. However, i believe the parellel is obvious.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by noahz

Meanwhile, here in New York I've seen unrated fencers (yes, unrated) who could beat "A's" in practice, but couldn't acheive a rating for variety of reasons (no time/money for competitions, etc).

this is hardly a justification for a technique based rating system..besides, you said it yourself, they win in "practice"; very different from competitions.

i've been known to hammer everyone in practice whether i'm "fencing to win" or "working on stuff". i've also beaten several B's at tournaments (all in one day) and still have no new rating to show for it. its different beating a B or A who just went through an 8 hour working day than the morning of a tournament where they had time to prepare.

there's more to fencing than just technique..there's tactics, timing, etc...all these contribute in winning a bout and determining a fencer's ability.

we all know the rating system isn't perfect of course but its pretty close. i think, sometimes that the emphasis is placed in the wrong area. perhaps if they considered someone's rating based on who beat at a tournament rather than where they finished it might be an improvement in some cases.

An example would be (using myself of course) a case where someone won 3 DE bouts, beating 2 B's consectively, won the event but didn't earn a new rating because there were less than 15. at the same time, someone else at a, perhaps B1, wins 3 DE's and possibly earns a B or at worst a C.

btw, if it came down to "looking pretty" i'd be a solid B easily but there's more to it than that, and i'm not ready or developed enough yet to be a "solid B".

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Zilverzmurfen

Well lucky you, then you can enter junior comps!

I doubt that I could manage it fast enough to get all the way back to 19.

( It takes a very committed curmudgeon to complain about the prospects of getting younger! )

[noahz]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheCat263

Noah-

IMHO, I don't think it's the USFA's job to judge fencers on how pretty they look when they lunge. I know you know this better than I do, but the USFA is there primarily to support athletes who win. The rating system is based off this idea. What good is their techinical ability if they can't put a light on the machine? I think we can all name a few fencers who have terrible technique but are incredibly effective in competition. Thus, if tournaments are decided by their ability to put the light on the machine, we should at least seed them by the same standards.

Well, if they couldn't score many touches in competition, I would imagine that their technical ability can't be that good. Being able to do a slow and perfect lunge, advance and retreat correctly would only garner a "yellow belt" or whatever - not an "A." Remember my suggestion that a "black belt" could only be obtained from fencing a real bout with a judge - e.g. being able to execute actions under pressure rather than just during a rehersed routine.

Also, this discussion is only relevant to local fencers. It's true that, on the local level, we all know fencers who are somehow winning tournaments using sloppy (even dangerous) technique. However, I think we all know even MORE fencers who have somehow acheived an "A" rating, yet can barely win two bouts in the first round of an Division I NAC.

And - fortunately - the USFA chooses world teams and awards training grants based National Ranking, not the (broken) ratings system.

Anyway, there's no question in my mind that our past and present National Team fencers would also be able to pass every technical test and achieve the technical highest ratings. Almost without exception, the top so-called "sport" fencers I've seen take lightning-fast, technically flawless lessons.

I think the more practical problem with this whole idea is: if there is only one standard for "correct" footwork and blade work, pretty soon all our fencers will look like robot carbon copies of each other. On the other hand, this approach seems to have worked for the French

[noahz]

Originally Posted by glowstix

there's more to fencing than just technique..there's tactics, timing, etc...all these contribute in winning a bout and determining a fencer's ability.

Granted, but all I'm saying is that I'd like to see the day when I overhear somebody saying something "my goal is to be able to execute a fleche correctly" rather than "Oh boy I got my C rating over the weekend!"

I just think that achieving a better rating is, well, over-rated, and I'd like to see a system that encourages fencers to develop their fencing ability rather than merely win tournaments. Having more fencers with competent technique will help everybody in the long run.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by noahz

I just think that achieving a better rating is, well, over-rated, and I'd like to see a system that encourages fencers to develop their fencing ability rather than merely win tournaments. Having more fencers with competent technique will help everybody in the long run.

The current system is necessary for the purpose of the initial seeding of fencers in a tournament. It's not perfect, but it's straightforward and it makes at least some sense.

I agree that fencers put too much value on rankings, sometimes even putting them above skill, but I think that's just because rankings are a quantitative measure of a fencer's results in a tournament, based on how difficult the tournament was. Saying "I earned by C" is equivalent to saying "I got top 6 in a tournament that had two As, two Bs, and two Cs in it, and at least 15 fencers." or some result of approxiamtely equal value. It's not necessarily worse than saying "I got in the top 64 in a Division 1 NAC," or something. The only problem is when fencers think that the ratings mean something they don't; that earning a D means that you can beat a U. But I think that while fencers go to more tournaments, they soon see that rankings are not an absolute value of a fencer's skill, but are instead simply letters that show how well a fencer did in one tournament.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by parrythis

Some folks fence and even compete for fun or to measure their progress. Others seem to be on an ongoing quest for tournaments in which they can improve their rating. Apparently, a good rating is important to some fencers, but not to others. Which camp do you fall into?

I've always thought of a rating hound as someone who was overly concerned with his rating. For example, I'm not so concerned about my rating that I would seek out a tournament where the fencers are known to be weaker than their ratings. I'm not sure whether you've had that experience, but with just 15 fencers, 2Cs, 2Ds, and 2Es, it just takes a few of those top fencers to be a bit weaker than the average C- or D-rated fencer to provide an easier opportunity for a fencer to earn/renew his C. Sometimes, by looking at the pre-registration list, you can tell when one of those tournaments is coming up.

I do pay attention to fencing ratings. I learn the ratings of the other fencers in my club by the time we've been competing together for a few months. I generally seek strong tournaments where I can get good experience. When I was starting out, that often meant going to D&U or E&U tournaments so that I could get more DE experience without getting clobbered by someone who was much better than me. Later, it meant going to NACs or Nationals.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't like the rating for the rating's sake. I like the rating because it reminds me of the hard work I've put into training and competing, and it shows that some of that work has really improved my game. Ratings also motivate me to continue to train hard so that I can fence at least to my rating. I fence because I enjoy the game. I don't mind losing when I'm at least fencing well (for me). I like competitions, and I like fencing different people, but fencing isn't my first or highest priority. I make as much time for it as I can, and I try to be content with that. The ratings just help me judge how far I've come. Years ago, I didn't think that I would ever earn a rating as high as I have.

So, yeah. I like the rating. I pay attention to ratings. I'm not a rating freak.