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

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


Why?

Presumably because the USFA has to cater to a variety of fencers at a variety of levels, from beginners to Olympians. The National Championship, as the highest-level domestic competition ought to hold its participants to higher standards than other domestic competitions.

Though I suppose you could ask "why" all the way down. Different competitions are made for different people. National Championships are for those seeking to be the National Champion, and as such are a higher level than your average NAC or C-and-under.

Quote:
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.


Why?

As above. If it were not, then what would be the point? Why not call it "The big USFA Summer Open" instead?

Quote:
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.


And I have NEVER seen it.

I wonder if one or the other of us is imagining things?

I'm not from the States, but I've seen this. Where I live, most of the local tournaments are part of a circuit that was, at one time, open only to unrated fencers. I know someone who purposely threw a DE bout to avoid getting a C card, as it would have prevented him from participating in them.

I don't think that this is much of an issue with people who cross the country to attend tournaments, however. Nor do I expect that it's a widespread phenomenon.

Quote:
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.


This whole edifice rests on the foundation of "lots of fencers are slyly trying not to get better 'cause they want to stay in Div III". That foundation is not IMO well established, certainly not by anecdotal citations of "many fencers".

Not to mention that people who purposely throw bouts to avoid getting ratings are, by definition, capable of earning those ratings they avoid. As such, the local competitions are no weaker for the lack of ratings. Instead, the ratings simply wouldn't reflect the abilities of the fencers.

So the conclusions that the local competition would be weaker is blatantly false -- it would only *appear* weaker.

Originally Posted by Inq

And if we're talking about "improvement", I shall again bring up my example from a previous thread: the person who I watched come out of the pool round in a Div II NAC at 1-5 or something like that and go on to place 3rd in the overall event and earn a B, in the process demolishing the #7 seed and the #3 seed in rapid succession. Now you institute the cut, and that can't happen anymore. No redemption, no clawing your way back from the brink of defeat, no self-examination and correction under pressure which lets you become a better fencer...and certainly no B...or C...or D...

In other words, at Nationals, people can't blow off the portion in the pools, and then just turn it on in the DEs? They have to fence at least passably well from the start of the tournament?

Certainly not a standard that should be required at a National Championship!

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

When would you have JO's? Currently it's over a 3 day weekend. Summer Nationals takes place after school ends. Parents, even dedicated fencing parents, don't like their kids missing school. Would you move "Junior National Championships" to sometime after school ends?

Sure...one in the beginning of the summer and one towards the end.

[oso97]

One of the reasons JO's is when it is, has to do with international teams. JO's is the final domestic point event for Junior and Cadet World Champoinship Teams, an event that is held in April. So, it is appropriate to have a Championship event for those age divisions just before. Like, in February.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

This is an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a year or two, and it's gotten generally positive feedback from those I've shared it with:

• Eliminate all Y10, Y12, Y14, Cadet, and Junior events from Summer Nationals. This would probably reduce the number of days needed for this event to 5-6 (currently 9-10, including Division I events).
• Add Y10, Y12, and Y14 to the Junior Olympics. This would probably raise the number of days needed for this event to 5-6 (currently 3).
• Rename Summer Nationals to "Senior National Championships", and rename Junior Olympics to "Junior National Championships".

Rationale:

• This would significantly reduce the number of days needed for Summer Nationals, resulting in a more manageable event.
• This would "flesh out" JOs, which is currently by far the lightest national event with only 12 events over 3 days.
• There would only be one National Championship for each event. For Cadet and Junior events, currently both JOs and Summer Nationals are considered their "Championships." Which is better? Is there a difference? I don't see any good reason to have both.

Reducing the size of individual events is outside the scope of this idea.

What do you all think?

What an idea, I think I've seen or heard it somewhere before...

That's right. That's the way it used to be, before summer nationals exsted. They moved the youth events for a variety of reasons, and I feel it was a good move.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by achilleus

They moved the youth events for a variety of reasons, and I feel it was a good move.

Why do you feel it was a good move?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Presumably because the USFA has to cater to a variety of fencers at a variety of levels, from beginners to Olympians. The National Championship, as the highest-level domestic competition ought to hold its participants to higher standards than other domestic competitions.

Thanks. That's still a pretty vague rationale, but I'm just looking for arationale; ANY rationale. I find it unconvincing when people just say "We need to do this, because it will achieve this, which is necessary" without any sort of reasons offered for it...

Of course, Summer Nationals, as has been discussed before, isn't really a "Championship" in anything but name, except for Div I. If there are still 50 people in the country who could easily grind me into red paste on the strip, I am by no means national champion simply because I win Div II, much less Div III. That part of the rationale at least---that it's the highest-level competition---falls flat for me...

As above. If it were not, then what would be the point? Why not call it "The big USFA Summer Open" instead?

As above. Despite the nominal title, it isn't really the "Championships" at all, apart from Div I, which already has a different "more challenging" format.

BTW, I was looking at last year's Athlete's Handbook, and for Div I it actually specified that only 60% of the fencers advanced to the second round, not 80%. Was this a typo or is it the standard now? Anyone?

I know someone who purposely threw a DE bout to avoid getting a C card, as it would have prevented him from participating in them.

Was he black-carded? Should have been.

There are existing methods for dealing with such anomalies, if only they would be applied. ( And I suspect tas you do that they are indeed anomalies rather than a widespread thing; again, I have never encountered the phenomenon in my, er, never mind how many years of fencing. I have heard people muse about throwing bouts in order to let someone get a rating increase, but never this particular variation. )

Not to mention that people who purposely throw bouts to avoid getting ratings are, by definition, capable of earning those ratings they avoid. As such, the local competitions are no weaker for the lack of ratings. Instead, the ratings simply wouldn't reflect the abilities of the fencers.

So the conclusions that the local competition would be weaker is blatantly false -- it would only *appear* weaker.

Good point.

In other words, at Nationals, people can't blow off the portion in the pools, and then just turn it on in the DEs? They have to fence at least passably well from the start of the tournament?

No, in very different substance, not just different words. Having a funk in the pools, then looking into yourself and finding the way out of it between rounds is not the same thing as losing in the pool because you weren't trying hard enough. That last IMO is another phenomenon more imagined than real. Or, doing poorly because you had an idiosyncratic referee, whose whimsies there is not enough time to figure out in a 5 touch bout. Or...

Truly competitive fencers do not need artificial incentives to do their best; that motivation comes from within them. If it must be forced, IMO, it's not worth having. And I am still not sure that in fact a cut DOES act to force people to "try harder"---that's another unproven assumption. ( Especially given the rationale that "a DE or two isn't really that much extra fencing". )
Speaking for myself, I would regard anyone who "takes it easy" just because he thinks he can as shameful...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Why do you feel it was a good move?

Keep in mind, the USFA tries to please everybody...

The concept behind Summer Nationals was to have one big fencing convention that the whole family could go to. The original SN did not contain any team selection events.

Competitive fencers don't really mind travelling for one event, it's a fact we have to deal with. However, economical it makes more sense to travel for a number of events. So, the USFA decided to hold one big tournament to try to serve everyone else's needs (i.e., not the the Div 1 competitors or those focused solely on one weapon).

Mom and Dad could take time off work to fence, already during a holiday so it would be easier, and all the kids could come and fence all four or five of their events. It has succeeded beyond the USFA's wildest dreams. All the problems associated with SN, are good ones. Too many competitors, not enough space, not enough time, all signs of things growing.

[Inquartata]

What about putting in place another layer of qualifications to Nationals: let us say two Summer Regionals, one each for east and west of the Mississippi or the like, and the top X number of people from those events qualify for Nationals? That means BOTH more fencing for all AND smaller, more "manageable" events.

Of course, it'd also mean more expense for the USFA in terms of venues, officials and miscellaneous expenditures. Which is no doubt why it will never even be considered; these needs take precedence over those of mere lowly fencers. Unless perhaps the work of running the Regionals could be foisted off on local authorities, rather in the mold of the RYCs...

[oso97]

Or perhaps a true Regional structure, several layers deep, each consisting of a circuit of tournaments. Superior performance at one level allows performance at the next.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Thanks. That's still a pretty vague rationale, but I'm just looking for a rationale; ANY rationale.

Why should we fall all over ourselves to meet your need for any ol' rationale?

I find it unconvincing when people ... sort of ... easily grind me into red paste ... because ... That part ... falls flat for me.

Your words don't make any sense. I'd ask you to provide more evidence to support whatever it is you're saying here, except I'm not sure what that would be.

I was looking at last year's Athlete's Handbook...

Why? If you're going to be saying things like that, there ought to be a good reason for it. Otherwise you're just muddying the discussion with wild accusations.

Was he black-carded? Should have been.

Why should we believe your say-so on this?

Good point.

Thank you.

If I may be so bold as to ask: When's the last time you really enjoyed yourself?

Having a funk in the pools

Oh.
Nevermind.

Let's get back to my dissection of your comments...

Truly competitive fencers do not need artificial incentives to do their best; that motivation comes from within them. If it must be forced, IMO, it's not worth having.

Why should your opinion hold more value than any other? You've offered no proof that artificial incentives DON'T work for truly competitive fencers.

Speaking for myself, I would regard anyone who "takes it easy" just because he thinks he can as shameful.

Faulty assumption there, bucko. Someone who "takes it easy," as you so blithely put it, just because he can, is not necessarily full of shame -- he might very well be proud of himself. That's a poor assumption on your part, and brings into question the basis of all your other comments.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

Why should we fall all over ourselves to meet your need for any ol' rationale?

Well, if you want to convince, as opposed to just hearing yourself talk ( or seeing yourself write ) it's customary to engage in a dialogue.

Or did you think that it sufficed to tell us what's what and then wait for us all to salute?

Your words don't make any sense. I'd ask you to provide more evidence to support whatever it is you're saying here, except I'm not sure what that would be.

Possibly the problem lies with the reader, rather than the writer; you seem to be suffering from word dropsy.

Why? If you're going to be saying things like that, there ought to be a good reason for it. Otherwise you're just muddying the discussion with wild accusations.

Get thee back to school, your command of sarcasm leaves much to be desired.

If I may be so bold as to ask: When's the last time you really enjoyed yourself?

Resisting the obvious joke here, because I'd almost certainly get chided by Gav again, I'll only say, deadpan, that I just finished a nice lunch.

Why should your opinion hold more value than any other? You've offered no proof that artificial incentives DON'T work for truly competitive fencers.

Ah, ah, ah! Argumentum ad ignorantiam and shifting the burden of proof.

( Thanks, I needed that! It's been ages since I was able to point out a fallacy in Latin. )

Faulty assumption there, bucko. Someone who "takes it easy," as you so blithely put it, just because he can, is not necessarily full of shame -- he might very well be proud of himself. That's a poor assumption on your part, and brings into question the basis of all your other comments.

Reading comprehension: D+
Use of logic: C-

Make-up assignment: Read the passage again, paying particular attention to the phrase in bold:

Speaking for myself, I would regard anyone who "takes it easy" just because he thinks he can as shameful...

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, if you want to convince, as opposed to just hearing yourself talk (or seeing yourself write) ...

At this point, I chortled myself right out of my chair. A guy with 11,000+ posts is alleging someone else enjoys his own typing skills too much?

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!

Hoooooo-boy. You've just made my day.

I suppose I ought to try to read the rest of that message now...
Mmmmm, nah.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

At this point, I chortled myself right out of my chair. A guy with 11,000+ posts is alleging someone else enjoys his own typing skills too much?

That I perhaps share the affliction does not prove that the accusation is wide of the mark in your case.

Tu quoque. I feel much better now.

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!

Very articulate...

I suppose I ought to try to read the rest of that message now...
Mmmmm, nah.

Ah...so reading what others have to say interests you far less than what YOU have to say. A HUGE surprise there.

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Keep in mind, the USFA tries to please everybody...

I see exactly no objective evidence that this statement could be reasonably construed to be true.

The "USFA" can do nothing: only people can do things. Many people that represent the USFA work very, very hard at promoting fencing, and accomplishing the organization's stated goals. I appreciate their efforts so I can continue to participate in my sport.

However, the "USFA" as an orgnization has its...issues. Many threads have been promulgated to cite them.

Without totally changing the thread, does anyone know exactly how the USFA is financed? I think there have been many threads on this too, but the basic question(s) are this: is the USFA a governmental entity? Does it receive USOC money? And if so, anyone want to guage the probable success in sending the USFA a FOIA (Freedom of information act) request for disclosure of their finances (or anything else we'd like the USFA to answer?)

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

I see exactly no objective evidence that this statement could be reasonably construed to be true.

Ever been to meetings, or talked to people about them? They try, and trying is not the same thing as succeeding. However, that brings to mind an old saying that when you try to please everyone, you please no one...

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

The "USFA" can do nothing: only people can do things. Many people that represent the USFA work very, very hard at promoting fencing, and accomplishing the organization's stated goals. I appreciate their efforts so I can continue to participate in my sport.

And when I say USFA, I mean the people that represent them. Or did you think I meant some ethereal entity that is known as 'The USFA'?

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

However, the "USFA" as an orgnization has its...issues. Many threads have been promulgated to cite them.

As does every organization and person.

Originally Posted by Dee EffEll

Without totally changing the thread, does anyone know exactly how the USFA is financed? I think there have been many threads on this too, but the basic question(s) are this: is the USFA a governmental entity? Does it receive USOC money? And if so, anyone want to guage the probable success in sending the USFA a FOIA (Freedom of information act) request for disclosure of their finances (or anything else we'd like the USFA to answer?)

This was actually covered in an AF article at one point, as well as on this board. Most the money comes from the USOC, thus the USFA is pretty focused on getting Olympic and international results.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

BTW, I was looking at last year's Athlete's Handbook, and for Div I it actually specified that only 60% of the fencers advanced to the second round, not 80%. Was this a typo or is it the standard now? Anyone?

Presumably a typo. The D1 events at nationals (whether in July or April) for at least the past 4 years (the seasons I've participated) have had an 80% cut. I'd assume some confusion from the D1 NAC format that leaked over into the wrong section of the handbook.

-B