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

[Dee EffEll]

Report from my division chairman is that the USFA adopted the procedure to only promote 80% of the field from pools to DEs in Div II/III and Vets at US Summer Nationals.

Confirm? Deny? Discuss?

[KD5MDK]

http://www.fencing.net/forums/314526-22-post.html

Confirmed

[mlr2fence]

I don't understand why 80% promotion is instituted for vets but not Y14 when Y14 is the larger event. I think its ridiculous to advance 80% when only 20ish people are entered in the event. I doubt if the few extra DEs--and to only 10 touches--are going to throw the whole tournament into disarray! A better approach would be that when entries consistently reach a certain threshold then the 80% is put in place for the following year.

[CvilleFencer]

Ah, but that would make way to much sense and be entirely to fair and non-punitive towards certain groups of fencers for the USFA ever go for such a plan.

[Mr Epee]

THANK YOU SWEET JESUS !!!

[oiuyt]

I don't understand why 80% promotion is instituted for vets but not Y14 when Y14 is the larger event. I think its ridiculous to advance 80% when only 20ish people are entered in the event. I doubt if the few extra DEs--and to only 10 touches--are going to throw the whole tournament into disarray! A better approach would be that when entries consistently reach a certain threshold then the 80% is put in place for the following year.

Because the youth events are "developmental" and vet events aren't (in theory, we all know in practice that there are 14 year olds with more years of experience than some of the vets who are clearly still in developmental stages of their (late-starting) career).

The idea was floated to only enact the 80% cut-off for events greater than 50 entries, but was immediately and generally discarded as a poor solution. Consistency is a good thing. The proposed solution also didn't ahve one of the features of your suggestion (having it go into affect in the following year), so it meant that people wouldn't know which ruleset applied until after check-in.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Report from my division chairman is that the USFA adopted the procedure to only promote 80% of the field from pools to DEs in Div II/III and Vets at US Summer Nationals.

Confirm? Deny? Discuss?

It also newly applies to division IA. This has already been the format at summer nationals for division I, junior, and cadet events.

We retain 100% promotion from pools for wheelchair and youth (Y10, Y12, which aren't national championship events, and Y14 (which is)), and straight DE for teams (div I, senior, and junior).

-B :)

[mlr2fence]

Because the youth events are "developmental" and vet events aren't (in theory, we all know in practice that there are 14 year olds with more years of experience than some of the vets who are clearly still in developmental stages of their (late-starting) career).

The idea was floated to only enact the 80% cut-off for events greater than 50 entries, but was immediately and generally discarded as a poor solution. Consistency is a good thing. The proposed solution also didn't ahve one of the features of your suggestion (having it go into affect in the following year), so it meant that people wouldn't know which ruleset applied until after check-in.

-B

I can buy 'developmental' for Y10 and 12, but Y 14??? Then why isn't Div 2, 3, 1A, 1 also considered 'developmental'?? We've all seen plenty of those 'developmental' Y14's in those divisions and doing quite well!! In fact, the only ones they aren't in is Vets! (and thats only because of age for I'm sure if there was some other way in, they'd also start appearing there, too!!!). I've nothing against Y14s, but if they want to play with the big boys, they should be treated as such.

[noodle]

I can buy 'developmental' for Y10 and 12, but Y 14??? Then why isn't Div 2, 3, 1A, 1 also considered 'developmental'?? We've all seen plenty of those 'developmental' Y14's in those divisions and doing quite well!! In fact, the only ones they aren't in is Vets! (and thats only because of age for I'm sure if there was some other way in, they'd also start appearing there, too!!!). I've nothing against Y14s, but if they want to play with the big boys, they should be treated as such.

heh. yeah there are some great Y14s. but it doesn't mean the thing is any less developmental, it just means we're doing a good job developing.

maybe we can use your argument here? 'i know some great Vet-60 vencers. because they're so good, we should make their competition more like the senior events. 15 touch bouts.'

[Li'l Bebe]

I can buy 'developmental' for Y10 and 12, but Y 14??? Then why isn't Div 2, 3, 1A, 1 also considered 'developmental'?? We've all seen plenty of those 'developmental' Y14's in those divisions and doing quite well!! In fact, the only ones they aren't in is Vets! (and thats only because of age for I'm sure if there was some other way in, they'd also start appearing there, too!!!). I've nothing against Y14s, but if they want to play with the big boys, they should be treated as such.

I fenced Y14 last nationals, (It was my first, so of course, I got trashed) and was shocked when I found out there wasn't an 80% cut off. It seems really stupid to me, and I can't quite figure out why they do it. They usually group Y14 with cadet and junior, so shouldn't they play by the same rules? Just know that Y14's shouldn't be blamed for the unfair policies.

[mlr2fence]

heh. yeah there are some great Y14s. but it doesn't mean the thing is any less developmental, it just means we're doing a good job developing.

maybe we can use your argument here? 'i know some great Vet-60 vencers. because they're so good, we should make their competition more like the senior events. 15 touch bouts.'

Maybe thats just what the vet-60's would want. More fencing! (not less, like this format)

[noodle]

Maybe thats just what the vet-60's would want. More fencing! (not less, like this format)

and the y14s would want less instead of more?

[oiuyt]

They usually group Y14 with cadet and junior, so shouldn't they play by the same rules?

The Y14's are MUCH more often lumped with the Y10/Y12's than with the cadet/juniors. As a transition group there's reasonable arguments for dealing with them like either of the two categories that they bridge, but for the most part Y14 is still considered a youth event (hence the name, presence at the Youth NAC, presence in the RYC/SYC events, lack of presence at JO's, etc.).

I can buy 'developmental' for Y10 and 12, but Y 14???

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).

-B :)

[JEC]

The Y14's are MUCH more often lumped with the Y10/Y12's than with the cadet/juniors. As a transition group there's reasonable arguments for dealing with them like either of the two categories that they bridge, but for the most part Y14 is still considered a youth event ...

So, why not do a 90% cut-off. It's a transition.

Now, seriously. The Y10/Y12 qualifying paths are essentially attending a tournament whereas for the Y14 Summer Nats, you need to qualify from a divisional tournament. Thus, the Y14 competition at Summer Nationals is already a more selected group. I do not see why treating them differently than cadets, who go through the same process.

[mlr2fence]

If the rationale used was that Y10 12 was not a 'championship' then shouldn't we change the name to something like 'summer national championships except for Y10 12'. Take it one step further and make it a championship for them, or eliminate those events or use the RYC as true qualifying events. We could really re-work the whole concept and come up with a formula where the points earned during the NAC season are added into the summer nat results for a true year end champion, and not a champion-who-won-the- event. Bottom line, i hate to see fencing opportunities removed, instead of added. By making more events with the 80% it means that more make the trek for just one pool of fencing. Have an event at S Nat for the more recreational, beginner fencers with no cut off and then make the qualifying tougher for the other events to control the numbers.

[Morion]

Will this be in effect for all sanctioned tournaments or just the big ones such as the nationals? I'm curious because I'll be attending tourneys for the first time this year and I would like to get a little experience with DE's even if it is on a "one & done" basis.

[noodle]

Have an event at S Nat for the more recreational, beginner fencers with no cut off and then make the qualifying tougher for the other events to control the numbers.

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.

Will this be in effect for all sanctioned tournaments or just the big ones such as the nationals? I'm curious because I'll be attending tourneys for the first time this year and I would like to get a little experience with DE's even if it is on a "one & done" basis.

only summer nationals. hence the title of the thread.

[noodle]

Will this be in effect for all sanctioned tournaments or just the big ones such as the nationals? I'm curious because I'll be attending tourneys for the first time this year and I would like to get a little experience with DE's even if it is on a "one & done" basis.

only summer nationals. hence the title of the thread.

[Sciurus-Rex]

In general, complaints about leaving the bottom 20 percent behind are based on bad assumptions of the nature of big, national events. 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.

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.

[rcmatthews]

I agree with you, and I also think that it was wise to not institute a cutoff at NACs, becuase they are indeed intended as developmental tournaments, and not a championship. It is hard for me to justify that less fencing is a good thing, but if you don;t make the top 80% out of pools you are probably going to lose in the first round anyway.