80% promotion for Div II/III/Vet @ US nationals

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

As for the difference between young and old cut-off percentages ... (shrug) Darned if I know. Logic tends to slip into a different gear when we're talking about youth development.

Most youth sports have "Everybody Plays" type rules.

[sabreman]

I am a Vet 40-49 and I agree with this change because now the format matches the format at Vet WCs.

[mlr2fence]

Originally Posted by noodle

they have those. they're called NACs. if you want to fence a big event, travel, have no cutoff, fence more recreational people, go to a 2/3 NAC. summer nationals are exactly that -- national championships. people aren't there to cut everyone a break and give them a chance to fence as much as they can. they're there to determine who the best of the best are.


only summer nationals. hence the title of the thread.

Exactly, if they're called Summer National Championships then treat everyone the same.

[Mr Epee]

I think it's just called Summer Nationals... not Summer National Championships

Some events are Championships and others are not.

I believe this was addressed earlier in the thread.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I think it's just called Summer Nationals... not Summer National Championships

Some events are Championships and others are not.

I believe this was addressed earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by USFA.org

DIVISION I/SUMMER NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, Atlanta, GA, 6/30/2006 - 7/9/2006

http://www.usfencing.org/do/contentItem?contentId=654

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

Exactly, if they're called Summer National Championships then treat everyone the same.

hey, good idea. 80% cut for the referees that pass the exams and practicals, since we only want the best of the best directing our bouts.

the point of the Y-whatever events are to develop our younger, newer fencers. in order to get their feet wet in a huge, national level competition, they have the Y-14 event at summer nats. this tournament is a developmental tournament. the point of this is to be a happy medium between the other youth events and a national championship. this medium is achieved through requiring some type of qualification, but not implementing a cutoff. this event is not meant to be on par with the rest of the events.

[Mr Epee]

The website isn't always clear... so I'll help ya out.
This was from post #13 earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by oiuty

Developmental wasn't an issue for the 10/12's. The motion only applied to national championships and there IS NO national championship for Y10 or Y12 (the events for those age groups held at Summer Nationals are NOT national championships).

[oiuyt]

Y10 and Y12 events at summer nationals are not championships events. It was originally decided that the USFA didn't want to be naming 9-year-old "national champions." This issue was reraised at one of the BoD meetings that I attended (July 2003 I'd guess, although I'd have to go through agendae and minutes to try to confirm that) with a motion to change the status of these events to national championships to bring them into line with the rest of the SN events. This was fairly general concensous on the board not to do so (the suggestion had been brought by the tournament committee as a housekeeping item). It was clear that this distinction, although not noticed by many (most?) parents, was one which the USFA feels is important to make.

The motion brought before the board this past weekend was to change the format of national championship events at summer nationals, therefore did not include the Y10/Y12 events. Included in the motion was an exception from this change for wheelchair and team events, the motion was amended at the meeting to have a similar exclusion for Y14. A similar amendment to similarly exclude veterans events was defeated.

Originally Posted by noodle

hey, good idea. 80% cut for the referees that pass the exams and practicals, since we only want the best of the best directing our bouts.

Takes place in the hiring process. :)

-B :)

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Y10 and Y12 events at summer nationals are not championships events. It was originally decided that the USFA didn't want to be naming 9-year-old "national champions." This issue was reraised at one of the BoD meetings that I attended (July 2003 I'd guess, although I'd have to go through agendae and minutes to try to confirm that) with a motion to change the status of these events to national championships to bring them into line with the rest of the SN events. This was fairly general concensous on the board not to do so (the suggestion had been brought by the tournament committee as a housekeeping item). It was clear that this distinction, although not noticed by many (most?) parents, was one which the USFA feels is important to make.

-B

If this truly is an important distinction to make then I'd recommend that the USFA be more careful with their references to Summer Nationals and what is or is not a true National Championship event. In addition to the web site showing the Y10/Y12 events under the banner DIVISION I/SUMMER NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS the recent edition of American Fencing, on page 21, has a statement that 'Here...is the list of victors- the 2005 U.S. National Champions', and on page 23 the Y10 and Y12 winners are listed.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Thank God, that is all I gotta say.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Goofy

the recent edition of American Fencing, on page 21, has a statement that 'Here...is the list of victors- the 2005 U.S. National Champions', and on page 23 the Y10 and Y12 winners are listed.

The USFA does not have editorial control over American Fencing, and, indeed, does not see the copy until the magazine arrives post-publication. While I'm not saying that the USFA isn't less than fully careful about the use of the term (and I will mention it the next time I talk to Michael Massik), such mistakes in American Fencing aren't something to blame on the USFA or the national office.

The TOURNAMENT (actually two tournaments held at the same time and location slightly more than half the time, hence the D1/SNC dichotomy) is the Summer National Championship, but not all events held as part of the tournament are National Championship events. The USFA sponsors and end-of-season national tournament for Y10 and Y12, but they aren't national championships. When the USFA was giving out patches to the winner they were careful to make sure that the patches did not have the words "National Champion" on them (I remember the discussion from 2003 or 2004). Now if someone tells me that the 2005 medals given out DID have that (or similar) language, I wouldn't be surprised, but they shouldn't.

Regardless, the reason why the motion, prior to amendment, wouldn't have affected Y10/Y12 events (as was made clear in the rationale text by implication if not explicitly) was that they aren't national championships. This was intentional by the writers of the motion.

-B :)

[duel mom]

I know I have seen a coach quoted in print that he had a Y10 fencer who finished at number one as a National Champion and also quoted as saying he was number one in the nation. I guess the latter statement could not be debated while the first statement could?

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

The USFA does not have editorial control over American Fencing, and, indeed, does not see the copy until the magazine arrives post-publication.

My latest copy of AF says it is a publication of the USFA.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

My latest copy of AF says it is a publication of the USFA.

It is a publication of the USFA, and it is accounted for as part of the USFA budget, but the USFA doesn't have editorial control (the American Fencing editor (and staff?) do), and, as a point that was explicitly made at the BoD meeting last weekend, the national office staff doesn't see a pre-printing copy of the magazine. The BoD techinally has oversight of the AF methods, but certainly doesn't (currently) have input into content prior to production.

Do errors occur in printed materials? Absolutely. The New York Times has an errata section. No reason why AF should be immune.

-B :)

[Inquartata]

Out of curiosity, what was the logic for exempting Wheelchair? It is a "national championship" and isn't really "developmental"...and if we are following Sciurus Rex's reasoning, then "It doesn't matter how much you enjoy fencing, and how many bouts you'd like before being sent home -- if you're not good enough to ooze out of the bottom ranks, you don't deserve to get more floor time. It's that simple. The organization has decided it's a valid elimination system to dismiss the blatantly unworthy. After all, the competition isn't about YOUR fun and investment; it's about determining a winner".

Meanwhile, don't anyone celebrate about the cutoffs not being applied to NACs. It's only a matter of time before someone proposes to the USFA that since Div I NACs use the cut, it's only proper to do so for all the other events as well. This is just boiling the frog slowly.

Once again reducing the workload on the bureaucracy and the officials takes precedence over the needs and wishes of the fencers they are supposed to serve.

[Ordway]

What, exactly, is the rationale behind the cut, anyway?

I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay more in entry fees if it will help pay the referees and rent the space to have the extra DEs. The entry fees are the smallest part of the overall expense for a Nationals trip anyway.

I'm just kind of shocked that this has been effected without much fanfare. Yes, Nationals have been getting bigger, but for instance the 2005 event went off (in my experience) much more smoothly and efficiently than the 2003 one, despite having more entries. What is the perceived problem that's being "solved" here?

And if the problem is too many bouts, surely the total number of entries is more relevant than a 20% cut. You'll still have the same number of pool bouts. Why not focus on restricting the number of qualifiers even more, first?

The USFA serves fencers. Surely the popularity of Summer Nationals, with so many entries, is a sign that fencers LIKE Nationals and find it to be a valuable experience. It seems counterproductive to say "Oh, it's popular? OK, let's make it less interesting!"

I just don't buy the "If you're not good enough to make the cut..." argument. The USFA is not an organization just for the elite, but for the development of fencing as a whole sport. That includes serving the interests of the middle and lower levels too - those are the people who will go out and MAKE MORE FENCERS by joining and starting clubs and programs and getting other people excited about fencing. (And frankly, how elitist do we want to be? Anybody who fences at Nationals in any event is a serious competitive fencer - the bread and butter of good salles. What good does it do to reduce their exposure to serious competitive fencing?)

And even as it is, the Div II/III/Vet level is developmental - not in the sense of making future Olympians, maybe, but in the sense of developing strong competitive fencers who love the sport. Why take a stab at reducing that? I don't get it.

I'm also afraid, like Inquartata, that this might extend to NACs too. It's bizarre enough to do so - after all, if something is popular and people like it, we should make it harder for them to do, right? Can't have mere mortals thinking they deserve a DE bout at a National level event until they're "good enough", right?

So, yeah - what IS the motivation for this?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ordway

What, exactly, is the rationale behind the cut, anyway?

size. summer nats is simply huge. generally, more people enter any particular division event at nationals than any single NAC over the same competition year even though there's a qualification path for nationals. nationals has to have all the events for which there are a championship over the time of the event. nationals has about one week to do every event (teams, div1, div1a, div2, div3, junior, cadet, y14, vet, wheelchair, all men's and womens in each weapon).

NACs only have specific events and a lower participation rate than nationals (cept for div1, where more people show up than are invited for nationals). NACs have 3 days to do one two three or so of these events. both time and size is on the side of the NACs.

its pretty obvious that theres something that needs to be done about the size of summer nats.

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by Ordway

And if the problem is too many bouts, surely the total number of entries is more relevant than a 20% cut. You'll still have the same number of pool bouts.

You won't have the same number of pool bouts. Less people will be willing to shell out $80 plus travel fees to fence 5-6 pool bouts. You might see more people fencing other weapons. "Hey, while I'm here I'll do div III foil just for kicks." Ah, unintended consequences, hunh? Yeah, I suppose they'll have to qualify for those weapons as well too, meaning some "A" epee fencer catches a dedicated, developing foilist at the quaifier and beats him/her early, well, too bad for that foilist, hunh?

But if the USFA's intention is to limit the size of summer nationals, and thus limit the growth of fencing at that tournament to what the USFA has decided is all they can handle, this is a step in that direction.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

But if the USFA's intention is to limit the size of summer nationals, and thus limit the growth of fencing at that tournament to what the USFA has decided is all they can handle, this is a step in that direction.

Wouldn't be at all surprised to see SN this year 15-20% larger than last year. The shift of coasts combined with the normal 10% growth we've bee experiencing should push us up that much.

JO's this year are going to be huge.... a young'uns event in the Northeast? Scary. :) Interestingly, scheduled on the same weekend as the New England Fencing Conference Championships a 2-hour drive away. Hopefully the coaches will realize this is a problem and move the championships (although there aren't many good options with most of the teams involved in conference meets the previous weekend and IFA's scheduled the following weekend).

-B :)

[dberke]

If we're going to use the justification that Summer Nationals is the championships and therefore we want the best of the best competing, and the Y10 and Y12 events are not championships, why not just be brutal about it and cut those events entirely? The USFA clearly wants to cut down on the number of competitors so things remain managable. The simplest way is to cut events. The Y10 and Y12 fencers already have the RYCs, so it's not like they're being abandoned completely.

Harsh? Sure. But look at the numbers: Last year at Nationals there were a total of 739 fencers total in Y10 and Y12 events. That translates into 727 DE bouts. Granted, those DE bouts may be shorter since they're best two-of-three, but not always. I've seen Y10 foil bouts last absolutely forever due to the number of off-targets they get...

Now, looking at the number of D2/D3/V40/V50/V60 bouts... If you apply an 80% cut to last year's attendance numbers, you'd have 459 fewer DE bouts to fence.

Seems like cutting the 12 total Y10 and Y12 events achieves the goals a bit more effectively than adding an 80% cut to 30 D2/D3/Vet events...

Dan
(A mildly bitter D3 fencer in his 30s)