Splitting Out Age Groups at Vet NACs

[Inquartata]

This past weekend, I asked about the recently implemented policy change which separated the erstwhile Vet Combined events at NACs into segregated age groups ( with 40+ as an ersatz combined event ). I still don't know who proposed the separation, but the story I got from a very nice and helpful lady was that it was proposed at the Veteran's Committee meeting at Nationals and voted in by those present ( about 50 veterans ). It was not presented for consideration or comment to the full Veteran membership AFAIK. At least I never heard about it before it was announced by the USFA as a fait accompli.

I speculate that the way it went was: The proponents presented a well-polished case, and any possible opposition was disorganized and caught off guard....or at least hadn't had the time for reflection and careful consideration that the advocates had. A vote was called for, and the assembled veterans assented to the change. Again, I speculate that most of those voting were, consonant with overall numbers in the three weapons, epeeists and foilists, who rightly did not see much of a problem with any reduction in the number of entrants per event which might result.


Net result at Pittsburgh: a mere 16 entrants in the V40 MS and not many more in the other age groups. WS similar numbers. I spoke with at least 5 long-time Vet MS competitors who told me that they will not be entering any more Vet NACs as a consequence of the shrunken field sizes, as the entry fees and expenses of travel, lodging and so on are prohibitive for an event which is smaller than many local competitions.

I am writing an email to Paul Levy, the Chair of the Veterans Committee, asking that this policy be reconsidered and indeed reversed. I invite any other Veteran fencer who is dismayed by the potential starvation of Veteran events to do likewise. I understand that there is at least one petition circulating to the same end. If anyone knows who is circulating it and how I might arrange to sign it I will be only too happy to do so. Please let me know.

[JEC]

Inq.,
I heard from a Vet Team member that the rationale was to select more fairly the US Vet Team members. The issue is that in DEs of a Vet combined event are considered some "uneven" because younger members (40-49) might pose a greater challenge than an older (60+) fencer, and some felt that it is unfair to be eliminated by those "younger fencers". Thus, they decided to use age group competitions to rank and select the fencers for the US vet team for that age category.

[fencerbill]

I am one of the Veteran fencers who strongly supports the present policy.

I guess it all depends on why you participate in Veterans fencing. For me, a strong consideration is qualifying for and participating in the Veterans World Championships. But only 4 fencers from each country are allowed to participate in each age group, so you have to qualify.

We over 60 fencers have long complained that qualifying was much more complicated because of the combined over 40 event. I have had too much of the unclassified fencer in my pool being a 43 year old Sabre coach from Troy New York who busted my ***. Getting team qualifying points was more like a lottery. You might get 90 year old Mr Appling but you also could get Don Anthony in your pool and Steve Mormando in your first DE like I did last year.

You might say the equivalent is for the forty year olds to participate in Div 1's as qualifiers. That 20 year age difference can make a big difference.

We have been trying to get these age group qualifiers for about six years. About four years ago they told us we could have our age group qualifers but there would be no fencing for the 40-49 year olds. At that time the attendees at the Vets Committee meeting voted and said we didn't want the forty year olds trashed so we put up with combined as qualifiers. Last year they allowed for splitting the age groups and the majority of the Vets Committee attendees voted to start the age group qualifiers.

So nobody snuck this in. If you want to see the effects of the combined as qualifiers, look at the USFA web site rankings for the 60 Plus age group while last years results are still shown.

If you add up the participants in the three age groups, the numbers are about equal to the participants in last years combined. My impression is that there was more participation in the Womens 40 Plus Combined from the fencers who also fenced in the age groups that there was for the men.

Also, who complained? I was told there was hardly anyone at the Vets Committee meeting except the committee members.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

You might say the equivalent is for the forty year olds to participate in Div 1's as qualifiers. That 20 year age difference can make a big difference.

Yes...and what could the rationale possibly be for me to say, make it easier for me to do well in Div I by arranging it so I don't have to fence those kids?

We fence whoever is before us in Div I...and Div IA...and Div II...and Div III. We don't get to pick only those opponents who we feel don't have some unfair advantage over us. Why should it be different in the Vets?

I don't grumble about having to get shellacked by 16-year-olds, nor do I try to arrange it so that I'm shielded from having to fence them. I figure it makes me fence better, and improve, just being in that competition.

If qualification to Worlds is the big sticking point, run a combined event like some Divisions run mixed-sex events with a point system: the 60-year-old who places highest gets the points as though he won his event, #2 gets the next place, etc. What glory ( or enjoyment ) is there in fencing a bare handful of peers only---and paying a few hundred dollars for the privilege?

Last year they allowed for splitting the age groups and the majority of the Vets Committee attendees voted to start the age group qualifiers.

Question: Why wasn't the entire Veteran membership consulted? Why only the select meeting attendees?

So nobody snuck this in.

OK. Although the effect is the same: it certainly wasn't advertised. Just quietly slipped through without fanfare.

If you add up the participants in the three age groups, the numbers are about equal to the participants in last years combined.

Big differences: 16 people at Pittsburgh made for a B1. Denver was what, a B3? And what is the point of adding up people who can't face each other? That's like saying add in the epeeists and foilists and it would have been a really big event.

And for many of us, variety is the spice of life ( and fencing ). I for one do not want to face only the same dozen people at every NAC. That's a good way to get stale.

My impression is that there was more participation in the Womens 40 Plus Combined from the fencers who also fenced in the age groups that there was for the men.

I believe that's right. The womens events were actually larger than the mens.

Also, who complained? I was told there was hardly anyone at the Vets Committee meeting except the committee members.

At Pittsburgh? The complaining was interpersonal, on the floor, in conversation. I didn't even know there WAS a meeting in Pittsburgh.

IMO this will mean slow death by attrition for the Veteran concept altogether, as fewer people want to come fence in tiny events at exorbitant prices, and that leads to even smaller events, leading to still fewer participants, until the events shrink away to nothing.

Be careful what you wish for, Bill.

However, as much as I like arguing , that wasn't the purpose of this thread. It was only to provide a rallying point for those of us who dislike this development. Anyone who supports it is welcome to do so, and I'm not trying to disrespect their views...only to note what I'm doing and why, and to invite like-minded folks to do the same.

[KD5MDK]

I have to say the WC selection argument is fairly persuasive. It is in a sense a qualifying tournament, just as Sectionals, Div I, Junior and Cadet events are. It should be noted that in all of those events (except Div I, which is a special case) the event is limited to the people eligable for the event they are qualifying for. I can't go to the Southeast Sectionals and qualify there, because I'm not a member. I can't fence in the Junior or Cadet events, because I'm too old. The only event which qualifies you for a National Team spot that doesn't impose age restrictions comperable to the Team's age restrictions is Div I, which qualifies you for the Senior team, which isn't age restricted (except over 13).

That said, having small, repetitive Veterans events is a problem, and the best solution to this is to get more people involved in Veterans fencing, and increase the level by improving the fencers at each age group.

[edew]

Inq, you would grumble if a 16 year old, who is NOT eligible to qualify to a veteran-aged event shellacks you in the pools or DEs. You would then say, hey, why is this person here affecting me, but not affecting others?

That's the claim that Bill is making. You (and other 40-year-olds) are making things difficult for the 50s and 60s fencers. Your results do not do anything particular for you, but may cause some fencers a chance to qualify to a world championship team.

I can see Bill's argument making sense (although his Div I analog was weak and missing the crucial element of non-eligible fencers possibly obstructing an eligible fencer's path to qualification).

On the other hand, I would like to see a larger turn out for the benefit of the fencers. 16 is rather small, but I suspect part of the reason is the location as much as anything else. Very few of the California fencers attended. Runyon wasn't there. Milne is injured. Dogillo didn't attend. Nor did Knies and several other veteran-aged fencers from CA. The main reason, I suspect, is location more than anything else.

Wait for the Reno Vet NAC to see whether your gripe has any validity. I'm guessing you'll see a large contingent from CA and NV for the Reno NAC. The numbers will then be more reasonable.

However, I would like to see the possibility of USFA offering veteran aged fencers who are 50+ or 60+ a discount for fencing in the Vet 40+. Maybe a $15 discount or something. (Although, such a miniscule discount is irrelevant when plane tickets, hotel rooms, meals and such come into play. Would a veteran want to spend an extra $600 for the plane ticket, extra night room, extra meals, loss of income, whatever, for a savings of $15? Probably not.)

[Peach]

some comments:

1. The Veteran Committee meeting (time and place) was announced over the PA at regular intervals (it seemed to me as if it was about every half hour) on the day it was held (Friday). I don't know what happened--usually we have a good turnout. Every veteran is welcome to come. As with many such committees in the USFA, we are a small group of volunteers, and anyone who wants to add an opinion or some expertise is welcome.

2. For the most part, what people (mostly men, for some reason) thought was that it wasn't clear to them that 50+ fencers were allowed in the Vet40 event. That's where I think much of the problem was. We need to make that clearer for the Reno NAC.

3. In the women's sabre, I heard that one 40-49 woman stayed home because she felt there ought to be a 40-49 event rather than a combined one. The rest did not seem to feel too badly about having the 50+ fencers in with them, even though the 40+ was won by a 50+ fencer (Jane Eyre). The 50-59 fencers I talked to all seemed happy about the extra event. The 60+ fencer who won her event (Sherry Green) was downright thrilled that she didn't have to fence the combined event. She put in her time (about two years) losing every bout in the combined veteran event in order to qualify for the World Team.

4. I was told that in fact the team leaders or whatever they are called (captains?) at the Vet Worlds in Tampa did vote in favor of including a 40-49 category in World Veterans. This does not mean it's in. It means that several countries must now formally petition the FIE, and the FIE will eventually decide one way or another. From my experience with the inclusion of women's sabre, even when almost everyone agrees it takes several years for this process. I'm sure the NAC structure will change to reflect that.

[mlr2fence]

I think there a very valid argument in separating out the vet age groups. The main one as pointed out is that if a fencer were in 60+ it would not be fair for them to meet someone in the first DE who is not even eligible for the event they're trying to qualify for(VET World Champs) knock them out. Had it been a separated out event that fencer may have gone on to qualify. In a combined event he's knocked out prematurely.
Since 40-49 is not a World Champ category it is not a qualifier for anything so the USFA can make the event whatever they want, i.e. they could drop the age down to 35 if desired to increase the numbers per event.

[mlr2fence]

Also, some of the 'older' vet fencers may not want to fence 'younger' ones in such an emotional charged atmosphere as a NAC for fear of injury.

[nahouw]

The 40+ event IS the combined event -- half of my foil pool and sabre pool were 50+ and 60+ fencers. I guess for some reason that the MS prefered to not opt to also fence in the 40+ event.

[mfp]

The most common reasons I heard for Vet50+s not fencing in the Vet40+ combined events were:

0) They weren't going to PIT at all.

1) They didn't know they could fence in the Vet40 combined

2) Scheduling.

Some weapon/gender combinations (e.g. Vet ME) held the Vet40+ event before the 50/60s. Many 50+s I talked to thought fencing the combined event first would be a good warm-up for their events so they fenced in the combined. However some thought fencing the combined risked tiring or injuring themself for their own age bracket event, so they skipped the combined.

Over in Vet WE though, the 50/60 events were held before their Vet40 combined. With that ordering their combined event seemed to have a fairly high participation level from the 50/60s even despite being held late on Sunday.

[Artisan]

I thought the reason for the separation of the age groups was because of the plans of the FIE to introduce a 40+ group for the 2007 world championships. Hasn't anyone else heard this rumor? If its true, then the USFA is ahead of the curve in establishing separate age group points standings that are built on more than one event per year. Please, can anyone verify whether or not the FIE will start 40 + vet worlds in 2007?

[Peach]

Originally Posted by Artisan

I thought the reason for the separation of the age groups was because of the plans of the FIE to introduce a 40+ group for the 2007 world championships. Hasn't anyone else heard this rumor? If its true, then the USFA is ahead of the curve in establishing separate age group points standings that are built on more than one event per year. Please, can anyone verify whether or not the FIE will start 40 + vet worlds in 2007?

No, they didn't start the combined 40+ because of the possibility of 40-49 team participation. They did it because of the existing problems with 50-59 and 60+ team qualification through the mixed event.

Although there is discussion of this possibility, it has NOT YET even been officially proposed. Based on my experience with the vote for women's sabre, 2006 is impossible and 2007 is unlikely. Read my post above, #4

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by edew

Very few of the California fencers attended. Runyon wasn't there.

Funny, I could have sworn he was in my 2nd round pool in the D1 event... :)

54. Runyan, Joshua B, SAN DIEGO

-B

[edew]

Is that Josh, Jason, Jared, Jeremy, Janice, Jackie, or Jethro Runyon you're talking about?

Probably he can't or won't hang around for the whole time.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by edew

Is that Josh, Jason, Jared, Jeremy, Janice, Jackie, or Jethro Runyon you're talking about? :)

Probably he can't or won't hang around for the whole time.

Given that the two that are vet age are Josh and Cindy, and that Cindy isn't eligible for MS....

Looking at the points lists it appears that Josh routinely doesn't fence vet NACs -- at least he doesn't appear to have fenced in any for the past year. In any case, he was at the tournament, at least by the end of the weekend, so lack of his attendance is likely not the sole cause of his not competing. :)

-B

[Ordway]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Given that the two that are vet age are Josh and Cindy, and that Cindy isn't eligible for MS....

Looking at the points lists it appears that Josh routinely doesn't fence vet NACs -- at least he doesn't appear to have fenced in any for the past year. In any case, he was at the tournament, at least by the end of the weekend, so lack of his attendance is likely not the sole cause of his not competing.

-B

Cindy? Do you mean Heidi (Josh's wife)? Or is there yet another Runyan running around?

My understanding (from Josh) is that he went to Pittsburgh primarily because Heidi was fencing in the vet-50 WF & WS (Heidi took 2nd in the foil but unfortunately got injured and couldn't fence in the WS), and fenced in the Div I pretty much because it was it was there, for the experience.

[edew]

Cindy Runyon is not related to the other Runyons.

Maybe we ought to have a Jacobson vs Runyon tournament. Neutral weapon, like epee, say.

[Ordway]

Originally Posted by edew

Cindy Runyon is not related to the other Runyons.

As evidenced by her name being spelled with an "o" , as a quick search turned up, while the others are Runyans with an "a".

Maybe we ought to have a Jacobson vs Runyan tournament. Neutral weapon, like epee, say.

Now that I'd pay money to see!

[foily]

As far as I'm concerned, with how many fit older people there are these days, and how much fencing is as much skill as strength, how about we're "veterans" when we get the Senior Discount at Denny's and until then we're just fencers? It seems a popular thing to do is fence these little kids who are REALLY good, talk about an age gap, but those squirts are a match for anyone.