Epee: Is it truly out of control? - Data

[JEC]

I am restarting a thread to discuss some data about this question:

The numbers in the Southwest section for Epee ratings A's and B's have increased over the past 2-3 years. However, about 85% of them remain associated with 11 clubs that have at least 4 A's+B's:

Houston
ALLIANCE FENCING ACADEMY (Gulf Coast)
SALLE MAURO (Gulf Coast)

Dallas/Ft.Worth
GOLD BLADE FENCING CENTER (North Texas)
GRAPEVINETEXAS FENCING CENTER (North Texas)
LONE STAR FENCING CENTER (North Texas)

San Antonio, San Marcos and surroundings:
ALL TEXAS ATHLETIC CENTER (South Texas)
SALLE POUJARDIEU (South Texas)
TEAM HURLEY (South Texas)
TEXAS FENCING ACADEMY (South Texas)

Other SWS clubs with at least 4 Epee As+Bs
CADDO MAGNET ALUMNI FENCERS (LA)
OKLAHOMA SPORT FENCING (OK)

The quality of the coaching has improved quite a bit and a critical mass of fencers to train is needed.

Now, in the entire Southwest section (as of 9/30/05) we have 2249 members (about 10% of the USFA):

Saber: 4 A's, 12 B's with 141 rated fencers - 0.7% are A's or B's
Foil: 10 A's, 28 B's with 321 rated fencers - 1.7% are A's or B's
Epee: 48 A's, 62 B's with 362 rated fencers - 4.9% are A's or B's

Data:
Ratings - http://www.southwestfencing.org/Ratings/
Membership - http://www.southwestfencing.org/Membership/index.htm

However, keep in mind that we have more total number of Epee fencers than Foil or Saber fencers. For example, to the Summer Nationals, the South Texas division of the SWS only sent:
8 Saber fencers
25 Foil fencers
42 Epee fencers
data: http://oldsite.usfencing.org/Results...iv=SO.%20TEXAS

At last large local tournament, the Bobcat, we had:
54 fencers in Saber - C2
55 fencers in Foil - A2
75 fencers in Epee - A4
http://askfred.net/Results/results.p...rnament_id=669

How this compares to the National USFA 2003 BoD report

USFA 2003 report

Classification
Epee--------------SWS 2005
A 116 0.82% -------- 48 - 2.13%
B 281 1.99% -------- 62 - 2.76%
C 534 3.78%
D 876 6.20%
E 1,336 9.46%
U 10,982 77.75% --- 1887 - 83.90%


[b]Foil ---------------SWS 2005
A 211 1.49% ---------10 - 0.44%
B 353 2.50% ---------28 - 1.25%
C 534 3.78%
D 666 4.72%
E 934 6.61%
U 11,427 80.90%-------1928 - 85.73%

[mrbiggs]

I don't have a chance now (maybe tomorrow), but perhaps someone could use AskFred and check some similar statistics.

This is very important, because if the number of epee As and Bs has more than doubled in two years, we're going to find ratings to be useless in a very short time.

[JEC]

I decided to look specifically in my Division - South Texas. I looked at the top competition for each category in the year (SUMMER NATIONALS/DIV I CHAMPIONSHIP). I included the following competitions which typically are A3 or A4: Division I, Division I-A, and Junior (U19). I combined the results by gender, and added these three categories. There are two anomalies in the data. My division hosted twice the Div I/SUMMER NATIONAL championships, thus, the number of people competing in the Div. I-A and Junior were higher than in other years. Nevertheless, our fencers were inspired during those competitions, just look at the number of TOP-8 and TOP-16 combined results for those two years (2000 and 2003). The results are stratified by weapon.

Notes: The weighted average takes into account the size of the field for the average result of each weapon, and then were combined as described above. TOP-8 and TOP-16 means the number of STx fencers that earned that final result.

Tournament-YEAR-Best Average Result-# STx fencers -# of USFA Fencers-STx % of USFA -Weighted Ave-TOP 8-TOP 16
EPEE
Austin, TX-2000-----------5.0-----45------361-----12.5%-----49%---7--14
Sacramento-2001---------10.3-----30-----390------7.7%------47%---3--5
Louisville/Greenville -2002--15.0-----24----439------5.5%------50%---2--5
Austin, TX-2003-----------3.3-----37------457------8.1%-----39%---7--13
Atlanta/Charlotte-2004----17.0-----23-----429------5.4%------47%---3--7
Sacramento-2005---------14.5-----20-----480-------4.2%-----39%---4--7

FOIL
Austin, TX-2000-----------21.4-----19-----368------5.2%-----61%---0--3
Sacramento-2001---------31.4------10-----372------2.7%-----55%---0--0
Louisville/Greenville -2002---15.8------9-----454------2.0%-----38%---2--3
Austin, TX-2003-----------21.2------21-----483-----4.3%-----60%---1--2
Atlanta/Charlotte-2004-----25.2------7-----461------1.5%-----43%---0--1
Sacramento-2005----------14.6------9-----475------1.9%-----36%---1--2

SABER
Austin, TX-2000------------30.0-----5------253------2.0%-----65%---0--0
Sacramento-2001-----------54.0-----1------336------0.3%----98%---0--0
Louisville/Greenville -2002----47.5-----2------343------0.6%----70%---0--0
Austin, TX-2003------------40.3-----12-----366------3.3%----75%---0--1
Atlanta/Charlotte-2004------None competed-308------0.0%---- - --- - --
Sacramento-2005------------7.0-----2------321------0.6%-----56%--1--1

I do not see here evidence that our relative high EPEE ratings compared to the BOD report in 2003 are inflated.

[JEC]

My Division has 20 A's and 13 B's in Epee.

However, according to our new USFA website, we have:
1 member of the USA Senior World Championship team (WE)
3 members of the USA Junior World Championship team (ME, WE)
3 members of the USA Veteran World Championship team (ME, WE)

At Nationals using the data above, when at home, our fencers compete and do well. Proof: earning 13 and 14 TOP-16 places and 7 TOP-8 medals twice between the ME and WE Div I, Div I-A and Junior (U19) events in 2000 and 2003.

[ReverseLunge]

It is not out of control. That's just the nature of Epee. There is just a lot of randomness. I have seen a U beat an A and it was the U's 2nd tourny. All he did was close his eyes and counter. 15-13. Something like that could never happen in foil or saber. If you ever look at the results of an Epee tourny is often looks like this:

#1 B Rated fencer
#2 A Rated
#3 Unrated
#4 A Rated
#5 C Rated
#6 D rated
#7 A rated
#8 Unrated

[JEC]

What you forget to include is that the U is a Ukrainian epee fencer that moved to the US, or a B rated foil or saber fencer that decided to compete in epee. In general, skilled foil and saber fencers translate better into a good epee result than the other way around.

This thread is to discuss data, not anecdotes.

[broncofencer]

I think part of your issue is purely a numbers one. You list a large local tournament at A4 with 75 fencers. that means ratings are given through 48th place. even without the A's and B's you would probably have a C3 tournament which gives rankings thru 16th. Thats a lot of oppurtunity for a rating change. I think you would essentially see the same problem in foil or sabre if you had the same numbers types of numbers.

[JEC]

However, what I indicated before is that the STx division has:

0 A's and 6 B's in Saber - 1 Top-8 and 2 Top- 16 results at Championships (I, I-A and U-19) in past 6 years.

3 A's and 13 B's in Foil - 4 Top-8 and 11 Top- 16 results at Championships (I, I-A and U-19) in past 6 years.

20 A's and 13 B's in Epee - 26 Top-8 and 51 Top- 16 results Championships (I, I-A and U-19) in past 6 years.

Do you see a correlation? Epee is taught better and is more competitive in STx than the other two weapons. Consequently, there are more A4 epee tournaments and more high ratings than in the other weapons. However, at National championship competitions, the performance of those highly rated fencers is proportional to the number of A's and B's. The gradient is maintained.

[Feraud]

I wouldn’t use the term “random” to describe the varying results of epee tournaments.
Luck is not a factor.
But I do think that the nature of the epee conventions puts both competitors on more equal ground, no matter now great the difference in skill. The ability to score on any part of the body, double touches, any hit counts ect.
Foil punishes you for making big mistakes.
Epee punishes you for making small ones.
Certainly there’s more variation in the results of epee competitions and that translates into more ratings earned. Foil results are very consistent, the same fencers will usually place high every time, the result being that it’s less likely to earn ratings. All it takes to earn a rating is one good result.

Variation in results is the key to earning classifications, if the same fencers placed the same every time, there would never be any new ratings earned at all.

Once the “critical mass” is achieved, even more rated fences are going to be produced in any given area.

And the proportionally large numbers of A epee fencers isn’t a new phenomenon. The total number of fencers in the USFA has nearly doubled from 10k to about 20k members in the last few years. Those numbers alone are going to produce more high rated fencers.
Just checking the results form the afore mentioned Long Beach Invitational, back in ’99 there were 15 A fencers out of a total of 52 competitors. I’ve been going to that tournament since ’98 and it’s always been that way.

Speaking of “critical mass” just look at the results from LBI 2003
Since Epee has the required number of A fencers; 4 A’s are earned that year (one renewed) out of a total of 86 entries.
Foil by comparison with 80 entries (but only 9 A’s) means NO new ratings for anybody!

Foil it seems can never achieve critical mass, why? I have no idea. It makes me really doubt the numbers shown in the 2003 report. I’ve never seen 12 A fencers in a tournament except at a NAC

As the sport grows I would imagine we will see an increase in all the weapons in the number of rated fencers because of the increased opportunity to earn ratings. Especially in division that before couldn’t muster enough fencers to have high rated competitions. I don’t think that’s “inflation” because the criteria for awarding the ratings hasn’t changed.

[broncofencer]

I agree with you completely. obviously STx division is a strong Epee Division. I was merely pointing out that the number of A's or whichever ranking you chose in epee is "technically" easier to attain based on the number of oppertunities available. However, that being said I was making no claim that those ratings were in anyway an artificial inflation of skill. IMHO if you place in the top 8 in a tournament of 75+ people your good enough to deserve an A. Which is proven by the reults at national level. Esentially epee is very competitive in your division (Much jealousy from me) I think the numbers prove you have quality coaching and create a very competitive enviornment in epee events. I think that while the numbers are disproportional to the other 2 weapons they are not to the number of competiitors.

[OROD]

Speaking of “critical mass” just look at the results from LBI 2003
Since Epee has the required number of A fencers; 4 A’s are earned that year (one renewed) out of a total of 86 entries.
Foil by comparison with 80 entries (but only 9 A’s) means NO new ratings for anybody!

BTW guys, thanks for the discussion... this is exactly the types of ideas I wanted to explore on the subject.

Feraud, I think you're on the right track here. This is something I was thinking about while looking at the registration for LBI and then looking at the ratings chart. As you say, in epee there are many tournaments that reach the "critical mass" of being an A4 event. Comparatively, foil has about the same number of fencers registered (123 compared to 135 for epee), but can only achieve a A2 event. So, giving out possibly 8 new As for epee and 1 new A for foil is quite a difference. I mean, all you need in a foil tournament is one really good fencer (say, Cedric =) and no one goes home with a new A. But in epee many, many things could happen up there in the top 8 and you get 1 or more new As... so the critical mass continues to propagate itself.

Maybe part of the problem is the nature of epee (as has been speculated earlier on this thread) compared to foil. But, I'd say that's probably a small part compared to the much larger part the current chart plays. I think the USFA really needs to take a critical look towards restructuring the chart so there arents such large gaps in between tournament types.


.

[mlr2fence]

The bottom line is you need As to get As. If you have enough As to always make a local tournament A rated then its a given that the number of As will grow in that division.
Lets say that there is a new top-notch coach that moves into a division that is a fencing backwaters; a divison thats thrilled to get even a C tournament. That coach works with his fencers and they start doing well at NACs working their way thru the ratings to become A/Bs. This benefits everyone in the division because fencers from other clubs can benefit by watching these other fencers, getting tips from them, etc. Eventually members from other clubs will start having better tournament results and spread the improved ratings around.
As to epee vs ROW weapons: It can't be denied that to some extent ref subjectivity enters in, moreso in ROW weapons than epee, even tho I've seen it happen in epee also. For example, a 'known' fencer (high on points list) is fencing someone the ref hasn't seen before, not on NRPS, etc. Its a long day, attention wanders a bit. The light goes off, judgement to be made, the touch goes to the 'known' fencer, for, since he is 'known' he must be better and odds are that its his touch, so he gets it even if on video replay its clearly the other fencer's touch. I'm sure we've all seen this in various forms.

[ReverseLunge]

Do you see a correlation? Epee is taught better and is more competitive in STx than the other two weapons.

I don't think that's the case. It is way easier to get a rating in Epee. You can close your eyes and stick your blade out and still have a chance of hitting or doubling. I mean even you have a rating.

[nyacfencing]

Comparing division or section statistics will never result in good data, because fencing is stronger/weaker in different areas of the country.

Back when I fenced in Chicago (Illinois division, Midwest section) there were no A epeeists for a long time in the ENTIRE SECTION. As a B at the time, I was way up there, with there being only 3 or 4 other B's in the section. In fact, our first A was a female from Minnesota (Sara Cathy). The concept of earning an A was near impossible, as outside of NAC's we rarley if ever saw an A-rated tournament.

Now in NYC, it is the opposite. I will never forget our first club tournament after I joined... 27 fencers (18 A's, 6 B's, 2 C's, 1 D). However I strongly dispute those that say that there are more A's in places like NYC because A's breed A's via more A-rated tournaments. A's do breed more A's, but not through local events. A's breed A's through training. The more you train and watch high-level athletes, the better you become. In fact, few of the NYC A's actually earned their first A's at local NYC events, because the events are so difficult. Imagine having a first round pool with 4 A's and then having to beat Abend, Viviani, Normile and O'Loughlin to win a local sunday club tournament!!! Most fencers in NYC start young, get excellent top-level coaching, and have access to train with the best US fencers... this creates great fencers, and getting an A happens naturally over time. Quite the opposite, I have seen many more "weak" A's outside of NYC then I have seen in it... because although you may get "lucky" and beat one, the chances or repeating that 4 or 5 times in a row in one event is highly, highly unlikely.

[Sciurus-Rex]

A growing number of As and Bs in a parrticular region/section is likely attributed to (as has been suggested here before, individually) a higher population density of good practitioners in the particular weapon, AND that the top epee finishers are simply not consistent in their performance from event to event.

Yes, a lot of As helps ensure that a tourney will provide a lot of A rankings at the end of the day. But the harsh truth is that if the top four A fencers in the area were as consistent in their competitive outcomes as they could be, no other fencers would be able to best them for those final four positions. The epeeists are strong, but not strong enough to keep everyone else down.

That fluctuation MIGHT be a factor of the weapon itself; it MIGHT be a factor of the fencers' skills.
And it MIGHT rest somewhat on the referee-dependent conventions of the other weapons by comparison -- given nearly equal performances in a foil bout, the presence of a director negates points that would have made for a much tighter epee bout. (Epee does allow double-touch points, after all.)

[sabreman]

Sure seems like everyone in the DC area is an A in epee. Even a couple guys that are over 60. I was the last men's A sabre fencer in the DC area and I lost it back in the 1990s. Don't even think there are any As in foil in the DC area anymore.

[Mr Epee]

I think you forgot to define control.

This would be required to demonstrate that something is out of control.

[JEC]

I think you forgot to define control.

This would be required to demonstrate that something is out of control.

As I stated before, this thread is a follow-up thread for another one where this issue was been discussed until the thread was no longer used for debate about the issues.

The issue of control refers to the apparent increase of top ratings (A's and B's) in Epee as compared to the other two weapons over the last few years. There were several changes in the requirements for earning classifications over the last 5 years. This has led to the assumption that those changes are the "cause" or one of the "causes" of this apparent increase of top ratings. Lack of control in Epee ratings would be reflected as rating inflation. As alluded above, I might be the poster boy for rating inflation. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I have defeated several times this year the two individuals (B05 and A05) that were in my DEs to earn my B05. An the A05 happens to be a USA veteran team member.

Thus, the definition for this thread of "out of control" is the apparent rating inflation in Epee as compared to the other two weapons over the last 2-3 years.

[Mr Epee]

So you claim that ratings serve as a control mechanism.
Too many ratings damage their ability to control.

What are they controling?

[JEC]

They control appropriate seeding that is predictive of the final outcome at a NATIONAL competition (because they are national ratings).