Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

***Craig*** · 08-30-2005, 11:52 AM

oiuyt sent this to me when there were issues with the attachements. Rather than making him upload it, I'll do it now.

Craig

oso97 · 08-30-2005, 12:18 PM

Once again, I can not but comment on the LACK of reports from our ever-so-communicative officers.

oiuyt · 08-30-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oso97

Once again, I can not but comment on the LACK of reports from our ever-so-communicative officers.

That was actually in the message that I was posting until I ran into attachment difficulties.

As an addendum, Stacey Johnson sent out a message saying that there wouldn't be a USOC report as the USOC NGB Council hasn't met since the last BoD meeting, leaving nothing to report back on. So at least that isn't a missing report.

I also expect to see at least one additional item added to the agenda, although a revised version hasn't come out yet.

I've attached a copy of the July minutes (unofficial until approved next week). Guess I can attach things again. *shrug* The minutes include many of the committee reports that might not previously have been distributed here on f.net.

As always, please post feedback on agenda items. I'll post a meeting report when I return from Chicago (meeting is 9/10-11, so expect it on the 12th).

-B :)

Allen Evans · 08-30-2005, 12:54 PM

On the other hand, I am VERY interested that the USFA is approaching the scouting of opponents in a quantitative way. I will be interested to see where this project goes. I’ll also be interested – if this project flies – if there are some general conclusions to be reached about tactics in general.

Mr Epee · 08-30-2005, 01:31 PM

Yikes,

I'm extremely leary of the scouting project.

It's a big pet project, that requires a load of funding, and while it could provide some very interesting feedback, the information rcvd would be much more applicable to a country with a smaller and less diverse training program and coaching pool than the US. {read: Germany - Hi Paul! :-)}

The man hours required for a comprehensive and systematic anylisation program of this type are incredible, and in the end you will be working from a fairly limited/singular perspective.

Compare this type of analysis with the recent interview with Milanoli who said that he learns more about how to defeat an opponent in the halls of the hotel, and in the lounge, than by watching him fence...

On the other hand, I've had the pleasure of fencing against Zhao at least 10-15 times, in training and mini-competitions. The analysis is fairly accurate. There are adjustments that I would make to the suggested solutions, but generally good stuff.

Zhao is a fairly straight up fencer, but what would a scouting report look like for some of the more creative fencers? You've got guys out there with at least 2-3 obviously different modes of fencing.

Also this is a sport of execution... naming the action doesn't defeat it.

Baseball has been using this type of player evaluation for years, but all the scouting in the world doesn't help, if you hang a change-up to a power hitter. In baseball there are many more players to keep track of, but even there relationships and history develop in the matchups. Fencing has a much smaller number of competitors, and has a fairly low turn over at the top levels.

Practically any fencer/coach who has been following fencing at the world level for more than a year could probably provide feedback comparable to what would be produced by this type of research.

And for a fraction of the cost.

DHCJr · 08-30-2005, 02:05 PM

One item came to my attention is how funding from the USOC is calculated. Right now part of the determination is based on medals. They will announce what it will be in the future.

If it involves medals, then it is in our best interest to have the ladies on the same footing as the men. Foil again is scheduled not to be a team event for the ladies. Which of the men's team has a better chance of medaling?

oso97 · 08-30-2005, 03:39 PM

Seeing as how our Men's epeeists don't have a prayer, and the Men's Foilists are just now beginning to break into the top teir, while the Men's sabre team actually came in 4th in Athens, and is currently ranked 3rd (? I believe? possibly wrong there, but near that level), I'd say that the answer is pretty self-evident!

Inquartata · 08-30-2005, 11:31 PM

My computer has digestive problems with PDFs, ie it will not laod or read them. ( Which is why I anxiously await a copy of the NAC entry form in the next USFA newsletter, inasmuch as those are also available only via PDF on the USFA website. )

Anyone care to suggest another way to get a look at this document?

KD5MDK · 08-31-2005, 02:53 AM

3 comments:
1) Is anyone else curious that after so many controversial motions were introduced last meeting, so many were withdrawn this time?

2) Motion 3 under First Hearing looks exceedingly sloppy to me. A motion ought to include something more specific than

Quote:

Require stricter criteria for U-19 and U-16 events. We need to limit the number of entries for these events in both JO’s and Nationals. Initially I would limit the qualifiers to any fencer with an A, B or C rating. Eventually I would like to move to a more revolutionary plan where fencers would get points from regional events needing a certain number of points to qualify.

Among other things, I don't want motions passed by my Board of Directors as official policies of the body including the word "I" in them. If this motion passed, it would be useless, as it contains no word about exactly how the events should become stricter. It ought to be something like: "That registration for national U-19 and U-16 events be restricted to fencers with a C or higher classification." As it is, the motion doesn't do anything except for say restrictions should be tighter, and speculate how.

3) It looks as if the Board is being a bit sloppy with their parliamentary procedure. Motions aren't tabled until a specific date. The proper answer to a motion which didn't have more urgent business pressing down on it and which the Board wished to delay voting on is to postpone it definitely, specifically to the September meeting. As a tabled motion it will (properly) require a motion to take it off the table at the next meeting before it can be considered again.

Larrison · 08-31-2005, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My computer has digestive problems with PDFs, ie it will not laod or read them. ( Which is why I anxiously await a copy of the NAC entry form in the next USFA newsletter, inasmuch as those are also available only via PDF on the USFA website. )

Anyone care to suggest another way to get a look at this document?

Can you save the file to disk? IF you can do that.. I've noted Adobe Acrobat sometimes hangs if you are opening a file through an internet browser, but the same file opens just fine if I save it to disk.

Secondly, have you re-installed Acrobat? and I mean delete it, reboot the machine, and reload from the Adobe website.

Lastly, there are several PDF readers available, other than Acrobat. Check out one of them -- but I'd start with a saved version to disk as well.

Inquartata · 08-31-2005, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrison

Can you save the file to disk? IF you can do that.. I've noted Adobe Acrobat sometimes hangs if you are opening a file through an internet browser, but the same file opens just fine if I save it to disk.

I'll give it a try. Thanks.

Quote:

Secondly, have you re-installed Acrobat? and I mean delete it, reboot the machine, and reload from the Adobe website.

I haven't. Do I delete it using the install/uninstall through Control Panel, or what?

I suspect that the browser has been damaged by spyware. IT removed the spyware, but the browser has behaved erratically ever since...

Larrison · 08-31-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

[Re: Reinstalling Acrobat] I haven't. Do I delete it using the install/uninstall through Control Panel, or what?

I suspect that the browser has been damaged by spyware. IT removed the spyware, but the browser has behaved erratically ever since...

Yes, go to the settings/ control panel and remove the program through the "Add/Remove Programs" option. Then reboot the machine (this will reset some of the registry and other fiddly bits in the machine's configuration). Then reload the software from the Adobe website, if you need to. If you're behind a firewall you may need to have IT help you through this (depending upon how your machine is set up --- if you can install software yourself, you shouldn't have any problems, but who knows what the IT folks have set up any individual machine for....)

It's not uncommon for spyware to latch onto associations in a browser, so that when you go to run a utility program (like Acrobat or Excel or Photo Editor, etc.) the link won't work and you get an error message. If that happens, then you can usually get around that by saving the file to your desktop/ hard disk, and opening it from there. This is NOT good if its infected with something, so make sure your anti-virus is running. I also run Spybot Search & Destroy (free anti-spyware utility) every week or so.

oiuyt · 08-31-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

3 comments:
1) Is anyone else curious that after so many controversial motions were introduced last meeting, so many were withdrawn this time?

In the couple of years that I've been on the board, the vast majority of motions have been withdrawn prior to a vote. Generally either because off-line discussions have resulted in changes that the motion was intended to cause or because off-line discussions have resulted in the person presenting the motion deciding that the motion isn't worth pursuing (for any of a variety of reasons from a realization that it has less chance than a icy spheroid in the raging infernos of the netherworld, to being convinced that the motion isn't in the best interests of the USFA, to deciding that there are better alternative methods of achieving the same or a similar goal).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

3) It looks as if the Board is being a bit sloppy with their parliamentary procedure. Motions aren't tabled until a specific date. The proper answer to a motion which didn't have more urgent business pressing down on it and which the Board wished to delay voting on is to postpone it definitely, specifically to the September meeting. As a tabled motion it will (properly) require a motion to take it off the table at the next meeting before it can be considered again.

When actually at the meetings it's always (nearly anyway, I'm sure we're sloppy on occasion) specified that the motion is tabled until the next meeting. If you have concerns about the parlimentary procedure, feel free to discuss them with George Masin who is invariable elected parlimentarian (unanimously at every meeting I've attended with the exception of the July '05 meeting, where there was 1 desenting vote).

-B :)

oiuyt · 08-31-2005, 03:01 PM

I've attached Michael Massik's report to the BoD. Good news for all coaches out there...

-B :)

Inquartata · 08-31-2005, 03:46 PM

A kindly fellow forumite has furnished me with the agenda in non-PDF format, and having read it I have a question and a comment. First, the question:

Why did the USFA need to send representatives to the Gulf Coast Division's annual meeting?

And the comment:

I really do not like that proposal to institute a 20% cut from pools in all National Championship events. I mean, I VEHEMENTLY object to it. What the heck are they thinking with that one? Veteran events especially are not large enough to warrant such a step, and all events other than Div I are not true championships anyway. Very bad idea, USFA. Diminish the horribly burdensome workload on your poor selves by some other means, please!

schlager7 · 08-31-2005, 03:48 PM

It was a special meeting. Think Pennsylvania...

Inquartata · 08-31-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schlager7

It was a special meeting. Think Pennsylvania

Very special, if the rest of us are paying part of the travel expenses...

The Pennsylvania reference has gone over my head, I'm afraid.

schlager7 · 08-31-2005, 03:59 PM

I believe our division footed the bill.

Inquartata · 08-31-2005, 04:12 PM

According to the agenda item, only part of it. The USFA elected to pay the rest, presumably out of general revenues.

Quote:

The EC approved the following actions:
• That $650 of the travel expenses incurred by sending USFA representatives to the annual meeting of the Gulf Coast division be paid by that division and that 220.80 be paid by US fencing.

I still don't ken why the USFA sent representatives. Was there a local rebellion under way? Shenanigans afoot? Or is this to be a regular practice---random monitoring of Divisional meetings by the national office?