Fencing Classifications: What's it to you?

[Epee Scherma]

Some people believe a letter classification is a measurement of skill. This thought has met controversy by others on this board. I myself have trouble seeing how a classification does not represent a fencer's skill.

If a classification is a tool for organizers to make even pools. And that classification represents the expected degree of success that person will have. Isn't that still saying the same thing as they are more skilled than the others. Please enlighten me, if I was wrong there.

[larkmaj]

One of the issues in classification is consistency. An A in on area could be at a completely different level than an A in another area.

Also it's somewhat easy to inflate ratings. All you need is 6 USFA fencers, they can be terrible and have no experience, run a tournament with those 6 and you have an E. Take 15 and you have a D and 3 E's. And once unskilled people get ratings its easier for others to.

Also, there is the luck factor. It's possible to win a tournament completely by luck and then they get that ranking (usually a C) for 4 years, and that causes further inflation.

Because of these reasons ratings are not necessarily a good measure of skill. However, it is the best tool to try to generate even pools.

Success and skill are two different things, ideally with skill comes success but as we all know this is far from an ideal world.

[OROD]

Some people believe a letter classification is a measurement of skill. This thought has met controversy by others on this board. I myself have trouble seeing how a classification does not represent a fencer's skill.

If a classification is a tool for organizers to make even pools. And that classification represents the expected degree of success that person will have. Isn't that still saying the same thing as they are more skilled than the others. Please enlighten me, if I was wrong there.

You are entirely correct, the ratings DO represent a fencers skill. Their purpose is to show the relative skills of fencers, and by doing so to help seeding into tournaments based on that criteria. It doesnt matter if it's a good or bad representation of skill, the fact is that's what it is.

So, a separate question is then how well do the current ratings perform their job. As far as how well they represent skill, they do a poor job. The USFA classification chart has way too few types of competitions. You can have one A2 event, for example, that is just barely 25 people and 2 A's and 2 B's showing up and is fairly easy. On the other hand you can have an event with 5 times those numbers and it's still only an A2! You add that on top of the natural randomness of the tournament format used today and you have a very poor system for guaging skill.

Next is how well does it do it's job of seeding into tournaments. Many people here seem to think it does a pretty good job, but in reality it does a mediocre job at best. All you have to do is look at the ratio of possible ratings to rated fencers per tournament to see the problem. With a total of 5 letter ratings and 4 year numbers, that's only 20 possible different ratings. And in reality, most tournaments will see far fewer than 20 different ratings show up. Lets look at the Longhorn mens foil event as an example. Out of 32 rated fencers that showed up there were only 12 different ratings among them. That means that you have to find some other method to rank those other 20 fencers... national points, sectional points, IQ, shoe size, whatever.

I dont see how anyone can say that a ratings system that can only rank 38% of the rated fencers at a competition without resorting to an auxiliary method is a good system.


.

[achilleus]

I'll try beating my head against the wall one more time...

Ratings reflect only one, recent competitive result. That's it. That's what they measure.

Ratings do not measure how well you will do, but how well you did.

If you want the current letter rating system to mean skill, you will be greatly disappointed, and cry 'The system is flawed'.

If you accept that the system is for initial seeding only, and realize that it's not how you start the tournament, but how you finish, you'll realize the rating system is fine. It's easy and it achieves it's goal.

[mlr2fence]

I agree that ratings primarily show a fencer's recent result at a tournament and not a total, outright representation of his skill. Everyone has that tournament where everything just 'clicked' and the one where nothing 'clicked', allowing for 'inflated ratings.' However, I also feel that it cannot be denied that it also does indicate somewhat a fencer's skill level. A look at tournament results will usually show that the As are generally represented in the top tier placings and as one moves down the results there will be an increasing number of Bs, then Cs, then Ds, Es, Us appearing. I don't think that its likely we will see that U who has been fencing for a month win an A4. Of course this is not a strict order for there will be that E in amongst a cluster of Cs, etc. There are alot of variables--the fencer who practiced for years at a top club but never competed earning C at first tourney, unknown foreign fencer, injury, illness, etc--but if I had to place a bet on a tournament I would go with an A rather than a U. All fencers inherently recognize this or why else do they seek out certain tournaments--maybe a 'weak' one because they want to win, a 'strong' to fence get good experience?

[fencergal33]

I partially agree and partially disagree.

Yes, it is likely that an A rated fencer will do well in a tournament. However:

1) Everyone has good days and bad days, even those on the Olympic team.

2) A lot of earning a rating is being in the right place at the right time. It alldepends on how things play out.

3) In order to earn a higher rating, one must fence "better" than normal for them. For example, I'm a D05 in saber. I have been a D since 2000, and i have earned it 13 times. Some people say that I should have my C by now. Sometimes, I don't even fence at E level. So, in my opinion, I'm a solid D fencer, because that is the average level I fence at. (bad grammar, sorry!)

4) It's just a letter! Who cares?


My $.02

[kalivor]

To me, a rating does not denote skill or an expected degree of success or anything of the like. A rating in indicative of the value you bring to a tournament.

The better your rating, the more attractive a tournament you enter looks to other fencers. Hence, better ratings make for better tournaments (assuming you like compeition).

[Bayou Bum]

Most of us have seen average D fencers earn an A or B rating because of the results at one tournament and then they never even come close to earning that rank again. I've also seen 15 kids fence in a U tournament with one earning a D ranking after a couple months fencing. I think most of the problem though lies with the higher ranks. In should be more difficult to earn an A or B ranking than it currently is. It should be based more on performance over a period of time than one specific event.

[Epee Scherma]

Just to let you all know, the purpose of this thread is to discuss what does the letter classification mean to you.

I made the thread in order to preserve any thread hijacking in the classification system change thread (http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20367.html).

So just a friendly reminder to talk about what's the rating MEAN to you in this thread. NOT about if the system should be changed, that belongs here http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20367.html

[glowstix]

Just to let you all know, the purpose of this thread is to discuss what does the letter classification mean to you.

to me, its about ego..nothing more. its all well and good to say you're an A or B; all that does is give you nice easy pools, or pools that would APPEAR to be easy. for me, having a higher rating would do no good because more often than not i end up seeded 2nd-5th after pools anyway but its my lack of experience and other strong fencers that result in my undoing. as achilleus says, its about how you finish.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I wouldnt use ratings to judge skill. They're a nice and solid training goal though.

[Sciurus-Rex]

What does a rating mean to me?

It means social acceptance. It means instant friendship with any of the usual prerequisite investments in empathy. It means my mother will stop nagging, "What are you going to do with your life?" A rating means I can stop panhandling on street corners. It means a soft furry puppy on a cold winter's night. It means when I'm so intent on picking my nose at a stop light and I don't notice the light has turned green because there's one flaky dried booger hanging on way up inside my nostril that I can't quite reach and the driver behind me lays on his horn and I really want to get out and whack his windshield with a baseball bat I carry around in my trunk for exactly such circumstances but instead I can take a deep breath and count to 17 because that's my lucky number and it's his lucky day thanks to my fencing rating.

It also means I'm better than someone else. Amen.

[rcmatthews]

However, I'm likely not going to fence in a tournament that doesn;t have some highly rated fencers in it, and I think that most people feel the same way. This is why tournaments with higher rated fencers have more people in them, because many fencers view the ratings as an approximation of skill. I can say that an A2 tournament is likely to be more challenging than a D1, but that wont necessarilly be the case.

[Bayou Bum]

Just to let you all know, the purpose of this thread is to discuss what does the letter classification mean to you.

I made the thread in order to preserve any thread hijacking in the classification system change thread (http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20367.html).

So just a friendly reminder to talk about what's the rating MEAN to you in this thread. NOT about if the system should be changed, that belongs here http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20367.html

Okay, ratings mean nothing more than if I can fence Div I, II, or III at Summer Nationals and NAC's.

[veeco]

You are entirely correct, the ratings DO represent a fencers skill.

So, a separate question is then how well do the current ratings perform their job. As far as how well they represent skill, they do a poor job.

Nice of you to contradict yourself in the same post...

[rcmatthews]

Well, its not so much of a contradiction as it might appear. I mean something can do what it is designed to do, but do it poorly.

[OROD]

Well, its not so much of a contradiction as it might appear. I mean something can do what it is designed to do, but do it poorly.

Exactly! What something is supposed to do and how well it actually does it are completely different things.


.

[KD5MDK]

I say it isn't a measure of skill, but a measure of the potential level they can fence at. That is, at some point the managed to fence this well. If you think it ought to show their current ability, every time someone gets injured their rating ought to be dropped.

[keith]

I say it isn't a measure of skill, but a measure of the potential level they can fence at. That is, at some point the managed to fence this well. If you think it ought to show their current ability, every time someone gets injured their rating ought to be dropped.

or it's a measure of just how badly people fenced against the people you beat

[Goofy]

I'll try beating my head against the wall one more time...

Ratings reflect only one, recent competitive result. That's it. That's what they measure.

Ratings do not measure how well you will do, but how well you did.

If you want the current letter rating system to mean skill, you will be greatly disappointed, and cry 'The system is flawed'.

If you accept that the system is for initial seeding only, and realize that it's not how you start the tournament, but how you finish, you'll realize the rating system is fine. It's easy and it achieves it's goal.

I believe achilleus says it best.