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

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Ordway

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.

That's the end of that, then. Ordway, for one, is willing to pay more. Everything will be good now. We gots money!

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.

Doesn't mean they have to be "served" at every level of every competition. An organization is more than a few big tourneys.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Ordway

The USFA serves fencers.
...
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?)

This debate has come up before, but I just wanted to add that USFA receives, IIRC, the bulk of it's money from the USOC. The USOC gives money based on Olympic and international performance. In other words, the better the Olympic and international results our fencers get, the more money the USFA gets.

So, while it's easy to say, the USFA serves fencers, it's important to realize where their bread is buttered. It also is important to realize that if the goal is international results, there are many paths to achieve this than just get more people involved in sport.

In addition, I remember it being mentioned here many times that the USFA feels that clubs should be the ones marketing themselves locally, with the USFA serving a different purpose.

I'm not saying it's right, or best, just that's how it works at the moment.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

As the number of members in USFA continues to grow it might be time to completely rethink the whole competition format.

Being done. A task force is in the process of being named that will be looking at exactly this, taking a longish view rather than just "what patches should be applied this year" approach. Many/most/all of the recommendations will be targetted for full implementation at the start of next quad, although I would expect some of the changes to satart coming into place in 07-08 (especially if they minimally affect the Olympic team determinations and preparations) and some changes might be in place for 06-07.

The task force has a timeline of reporting back SOMETHING to the BoD in February and more complete recommendations in July. The members of the task force are scheduled to be finalized at an EC teleconference early next week and the names will be distributed to the Board after that has happened, and by the end of the month at the latest.

There is a separate committee/task force that will be examining the administrative divisions/sections structure of the USFA and making recommendations of possible changes to help make the USFA more efficient and better able to serve the varying needs of the membership and deal with the massive growth that we're experiencing.

Details as they become available.

-B :)

[Sciurus-Rex]

I believe most of the people whining about the 80 percent cut-off are motivated by two conflicting desires: 1. "I want this sport to grow and be recognized." 2. "I want to always be a part of the big events."

Someone's got to splash some cold water on that attitude. I know it hurts to let your grassroots baby go, to watch it become a behemoth that doesn't need your individual input to toddle along. But this is a good example of the kind of developments you've got to accept if the USFA is going to reach its potential. And, yes, sadly that means certain events are going to be more elitist and above the standards of the general membership. Not everyone will get to play all day at national events just because they want to.

The trick is going to be redesigning the regional structure of the organization so those sub-zones can support average members the same way.

[JEC]

Two ideas to decreasing "rating inflation" and size of NACs competitions while increasing their degree of difficulty:

a) Increase the number of Divisions at the NACs by creating a Division "X" for each rating, with Div. I being only A's and so on. OR Alternatively, making Div. I for A's and B's, Div. II for B's and C's, Div. III for C's and D's, Div. IV for D's and E's, and Div. V for E's and U's.

b) Increasing the decay of rating from 4 years to 2 years.

[Ordway]

Originally Posted by JEC

Two ideas to decreasing "rating inflation" and size of NACs competitions while increasing their degree of difficulty:

a) Increase the number of Divisions at the NACs by creating a Division "X" for each rating, with Div. I being only A's and so on. OR Alternatively, making Div. I for A's and B's, Div. II for B's and C's, Div. III for C's and D's, Div. IV for D's and E's, and Div. V for E's and U's.

That's a good idea. Breaking up the competition into more segments means that it's clearer what progress you're making. It would also give more of a place to Bs, who right now get fewer events to enter than Cs.

I admit to being puzzled about the specter of ratings inflation. Is this really a problem? The statistics posted a while back indicates that only a very small percentage of USFA members have ANY rating, and the higher ratings are an even smaller percentage of those.

Anecdotally, I'd say that sabre ratings are really HARD to get, and as a woman sabrist, even harder. National events are actually one of the very very few places that there are enough women sabrists all in one place to give out any ratings above Es or maybe a D. As a result, I've noticed that seeding in women's sabre events (especially events like Div III) can be rather uneven, because the Us, Es, and Ds may really be substantially better than their rating would indicate. And that is, after all, the whole point of ratings - to seed accurately.

Maybe there's a problem with watered-down ratings in foil or epee (as we saw in the statistics, there are a lot more highly-rated epeeists), but I'd hate to see a unilateral tightening policy on ratings, as it would screw the sabrists even more.

A two- or three-year decay (which I accidentally snipped) would also be pretty sensible, in that it encourages more "real" ratings (i.e. ones that are re-earned reasonably often).

[Mr Epee]

Holly and Inq both fence Saber.

They should agree to fence each other in a 15 point bout approximately 1 hr after being eliminated from the first round of pools. If one, or both, are not eliminated, then they should each select one, or more, competitors who have been eliminated, and fence them in a 15 point bout approximately 30 minutes after the conclusion of the 1st round.

I will personally referee their matches for 20usd per round.

More fencing and Holly gets to pay more money.

Brilliant!

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by JEC

Two ideas to decreasing "rating inflation" and size of NACs competitions while increasing their degree of difficulty:

a) Increase the number of Divisions at the NACs by creating a Division "X" for each rating, with Div. I being only A's and so on. OR Alternatively, making Div. I for A's and B's, Div. II for B's and C's, Div. III for C's and D's, Div. IV for D's and E's, and Div. V for E's and U's.

b) Increasing the decay of rating from 4 years to 2 years.

I agree about the faster rating decay. I disagree strongly about making 5 divisions. Thats 6 more events at nationals for each division you add. Its a pain in the *** to organize.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Being done. A task force is in the process of being named that will be looking at exactly this, taking a longish view rather than just "what patches should be applied this year" approach. Many/most/all of the recommendations will be targetted for full implementation at the start of next quad, although I would expect some of the changes to satart coming into place in 07-08 (especially if they minimally affect the Olympic team determinations and preparations) and some changes might be in place for 06-07.

The task force has a timeline of reporting back SOMETHING to the BoD in February and more complete recommendations in July. The members of the task force are scheduled to be finalized at an EC teleconference early next week and the names will be distributed to the Board after that has happened, and by the end of the month at the latest.

There is a separate committee/task force that will be examining the administrative divisions/sections structure of the USFA and making recommendations of possible changes to help make the USFA more efficient and better able to serve the varying needs of the membership and deal with the massive growth that we're experiencing.

Details as they become available.

-B

Like, perhaps, who is doing the naming of the task forces, how are they being chosen, is there a nomination or volunteer paths and are they taking input?

Sounds to me like something that SHOULD have been covered at Congress this year (Why do I feel like I'm beating a dead horse?)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

Someone's got to splash some cold water on that attitude. I know it hurts to let your grassroots baby go, to watch it become a behemoth that doesn't need your individual input to toddle along. But this is a good example of the kind of developments you've got to accept if the USFA is going to reach its potential. And, yes, sadly that means certain events are going to be more elitist and above the standards of the general membership. Not everyone will get to play all day at national events just because they want to.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but---why?

I mean, I know that's how you feel, but why should that view prevail? What compelling reason do we have to accept that attitude as the one which is to guide the direction of the USFA? The opposite view---that it is precisely the interests of fencers, and not just elite fencers, and certainly not the ease of the Bout Committees and national officers, that the USFA was created to serve---is IMO every bit as valid as its converse.


If the majority of fencers fel that it IS their right to "play all day at national events just because they want to", who are you or the national office or the USOC to tell them to get stuffed because "we have higher priorities"?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Holly and Inq both fence Saber.

Your grasp of the obvious continues to impress.

I will personally referee their matches for 20usd per round.

An epeeist refereeing sabre. Yeah, that's something to contemplate with enthusiasm...

Brilliant!

Self-congratulatory!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oso97

Like, perhaps, who is doing the naming of the task forces, how are they being chosen, is there a nomination or volunteer paths and are they taking input?

Sounds to me like something that SHOULD have been covered at Congress this year (Why do I feel like I'm beating a dead horse?)

No, no, best done in Star Chamber, otherwise someone might try to impede their "progress"...or hold them accountable...or something equally unpleasant.

They know what's best for us. You'll thank them later.

[AllisonT]

If cutting SN down to bite-size is the goal, then stop qualifying so many people in each division for so many events! Maybe the limit should be 2 events per person!

I agree that Vets events are so small that 80% cut-off is not saving anything. Cripe, it's a 10-touch bout!

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I mean, I know that's how you feel, but why should that view prevail? What compelling reason do we have to accept that attitude as the one which is to guide the direction of the USFA? The opposite view---that it is precisely the interests of fencers, and not just elite fencers, and certainly not the ease of the Bout Committees and national officers, that the USFA was created to serve---is IMO every bit as valid as its converse.

If the majority of fencers fel that it IS their right to "play all day at national events just because they want to", who are you or the national office or the USOC to tell them to get stuffed because "we have higher priorities"?

First of all, don't try to put me on a pedestal and make it my issue. That's just silly and misleading.

You're also being obtuse if you believe that support of elite athletes must necessarily diminish more average athletes. As has been pointed out here before, it's the tippy-top tourneys that attract national attention to our sport -- and in so doing, help the rest of us develop regional strengths.

People pick their authority figures to make decisions that serve the body best. Mob-mentality majorities are not effective developers of long-term solutions.

[KD5MDK]

How many of our top athletes ever competing in Div III, as opposed to going straight from Juniors to Div I, or even II? Top athletes say as the top 16 in each weapon/gender.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

First of all, don't try to put me on a pedestal and make it my issue.

No, you're just one of the more articulate proponents of that viewpoint, and are less inclined to qualifying your advocacy of it than some. And so I'm still curious about why it ought to be the viewpoint to prevail...

You're also being obtuse if you believe that support of elite athletes must necessarily diminish more average athletes.

Or maybe you're being obtuse if you think I'm being obtuse.

Again, you have not offered anything in the way of support for this view than assertions that thus and such are so, will achieve X result, and BTW that X result is desireable in the first place. This is fine as personal opinion goes, but again, why ought the fencing community as a whole be convinced by what you say is the way things are and should be?

As has been pointed out here before, it's the tippy-top tourneys that attract national attention to our sport -- and in so doing, help the rest of us develop regional strengths.

More assertions in lieu of evidence. I have not seen any indication that this effect is of sufficient strength to make the game worth the candle, or indeed that it exist at all. Merely saying that something "helps the rest of us develop regional strengths" does not make it so. Can you demonstrate that in fact this has happened?

People pick their authority figures to make decisions that serve the body best.

That...strikes me as a naive position at best. The reasons why people choose their leaders ( when they choose them at all, rather than having them foisted upon them ) are vastly more complex than that, I suspect.

Moreover, having chosen, there is still no guarantee that the leaders will actually "serve the body best"; that they will not, as it appears to me the USFA and certainly the FIE have done, fall prey to goal displacements and outside influences.

It strikes me as odd that people who are quite prepared to believe that national and state government officials and elected leaders are less public servants than captives of various industries or special interest groups should be so keen to believe in the independence and purity of the leaders of other sorts of organizations...

[Goofy]

At some point a higher standard (a level of 'elitism', if you will) has to be set if there is to be overall improvement and someone- the USFA, you, me- has to set that standard.

If someone wants to 'play all day at national events' then let them go to the NACs- an event known as a National Championship SHOULD be more difficult, and if that comes from fewer fencers advancing to the elimination rounds then it does. I see this as a good start, and personally hope that more changes (such as more stringent qualifying for Nationals) are on the way.

I see the lower levels as the best example of the problem- there are many fencers who actively refuse to improve their ratings because they want to stay in the Div II/Div III competitions, and the main way they do this is to not improve their fencing skills; I've seen this at the club, division, and section levels. My question is why should this attitude be rewarded with extended fencing time at the National Championship events?

And this also affects the 'regional strengths' point. If there are enough fencers in an area that do not WANT to get better they will in turn prevent others in that area from getting better due to the weaker competition. Which affects improvement up the ladder, not down, because the lower standard becomes prevalent.

The counterpoint to this is that we are only talking about a DE bout or two per person at Nationals and what does this hurt because they will have more fun? Nothing at all, if the interest is in entertaining the individual. What should be asked here is when does the entertainment stop and the improvement begin?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It strikes me as odd that people who are quite prepared to believe that national and state government officials and elected leaders are less public servants than captives of various industries or special interest groups should be so keen to believe in the independence and purity of the leaders of other sorts of organizations.

Well, you strike me as odd, too, for many other reasons.

But I never said anyone was a "captive" of industry or special interest. Nor --

Hold on.

You're a student of Conversational Terrorism, aren't you? (http://www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html) Brown belt level, I believe, if not a first rank black belt.

That would explain your penchant for micro-parsing other messages, skewed interpretations, and flinging "evidence" accusations like so much monkey poo.

Ahhhh... NOW I understand. Good one, Inq.

Yes, you're right. Absolutely. Dead-on correct-o-mundo.