Are you a "rating" hound?

[JEC]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Actually, the question is whether or not all tournaments are required to. If there isn't such a requirement then local organizers shouldn't receive too many complaints for not doing so.

Brad,
I think the issue is the purpose of ratings and points. Their purpose is to seed appropriately. Thus, you could make it mandatory but only for a given threshold, let's say A3, B3 and A4 tournaments. The alternative is as I suggested to use a threshold of 8 or more fencers having the "ceiling" rating (i.e.: A). However, the threshold could be applied to ratings A-E. Then, it might be even useful for youth tournaments. For example in a Y12, there are 40 fencers, 10 nationally ranked at Y10 and Y12, and 15 E's and 5 D's.
Jose

[soundinspace]

Originally Posted by noahz

I
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.

Funny you mention this becuase the club(s) in my area actually do this. We call them bands though. It segregates the practices definitely but it does give a lot of the fencers goals and techniques to work on. Usually there are less and less fencers for each band as the curriculums get more difficult to complete. For our judging panel, it consists of fencers with high bands judging the lower bands (as technique requirements to pass aren't as strict.) Eventually its just the coach whose the judges. The highest band in our club (the black band) has never been achieved and this band system has been in place here for at least 10 years. But its fun.

[little_old_me]

I wouldn't exactly say that I want a rating for the sake of having one... But for unrated fencers it is a goal to strive for. Personally, I would love to get an E (or D or C). But not for the sake of saying, "oh, yeah, I'm an E." Like was pointed out in an earlier post, the rating is merely an indication of how a person performed in one particular tournament.

I guess what I'm saying is, I would love to win a tournament. It would give some quantitative result that my practice is paying off. As for now, I'm content with developing and getting better. A rating means the same for me that a medal would. A prize for doing well in one event.

[sabreteur]

I'm offended by the term "rating hound."

Mainly because "rating who**" fits me better.


** person operating a business of negotiable affections.

[poor_nizzie]

*shrugs* I've been competing, albeit nowhere near as often as other people on this board, since junior year of highschool and I'm still unclassified. Then again, anyone who's seen me fence can attest that I'm not letter-worthy.
It just means I can fence pretty much any comp I want...right?

[KD5MDK]

Except Div I, and some age limited ones. Or anything that's one gender not yours.

[poor_nizzie]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Except Div I, and some age limited ones. Or anything that's one gender not yours.

Well, yeah, I know the age and gender are give-ins.
Is Div I limited to specific ratings? or anyone A-E?

[seak]

Div1 is only C and above
Div1 summer nationals is pretty much only open to those on the points list
Div1A at summer nats is open to all those who qualify at sections

[Josedariom]

I am from Puerto Rico and we do not have a ratings system other than the national ranking, but there are many Puertorican fencers who are rated in the USA, but I doubt they know, that or it not talked about at all, because they are not members of UFSA.

[RITFencing]

I think the initial question is a bit loaded and sets up a false dichotomy. One can compete for fun, to improve and to measure progress using the ratings as a sort of scale, like I do. I enjoy competing for its own sake but I also prefer tournaments in which I can increase my rating because it generally indicates a stronger competition, and earning said rating helps me gauge my own progress. I don't see how that interferes with competing to have fun or improve.

[seven6ty]

Meh, I've earned 6 A's in 6 months, trying to get my 7th next weekend.

But it's just for fun, I could care less about the ratings, really.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

But it's just for fun, I could care less about the ratings, really.

Which is why you've never mentioned your results here?

-B

[seven6ty]

Somebody's in a pleasant mood today now, aren't they?

[HDG]

I have found a downside to ratings: I get twice as pi--ed at myself now when I lose to or place below someone rated lower or unrated. Now, I'm merely a scrub weak D, and I recognize that the differences b/w D, E and U are negligible, but I still do fall in to the foolish trap of assuming that I will beat an E or a U, and then pay the psychological cost if I don't. Sometimes it's nice not to look at the initial seedings...

It does help take the sting out of losing to a higher rated fencer ("Well, I'm just a D after all"), but doesn't really add much to the infrequent upset.