Membership numbers

[hpfencing]

I have seen a lot of people in a lot of places ask about numbers in the past. I believe it or not the USFA has been sending the info out to clubs on the clubs disk.

I found it so I thought I'd post it here!

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by hpfencing

I have seen a lot of people in a lot of places ask about numbers in the past. I believe it or not the USFA has been sending the info out to clubs on the clubs disk.

I found it so I thought I'd post it here!

Thanks for doing so. It makes for really interesting study. Notice that since 1996 (why 1996) the total membership has almost doubled. But the number of seniors peaked in 1997 at 4853 and is down to 4028 in 2005. The real growth in solid numbers is in the juniors. While veterans is also a growth market but started from a much smaller base, 65 in 1997 the first year for vets. So juniors have essentially doubled but the vets have gone up by a factor of 24 times from 1997. Whoo Wheee, GO VETS. And just you wait until that wave of juniors rolls on up the ranks.

[edew]

Yeah, just wait another 30+ years until the juniors become veteran-aged fencers! Then the numbers will be truely enormous!

[Craig]

The numbers seem to tell a story of being able to sell fencing to parents for their kids or to the kids for various reasons (it's a good sport, sells well in college applications, etc.), but of having a serious problem with retaining the fencers as life-long participants.

Combine these numbers with the other threads on the challenges of continuing fencing post-college.

Craig

[Sciurus-Rex]

re Craig's comments: Yeah. It suggests a pattern that might be hobbling our sport from even greater growth.

[nyacfencing]

Sorry... but I've had too many business classes to pass this post by. These number are horrible...

Any business entrepreneur will tell you that you don't look at the numbers themselves, but at growth and, most importantly, acceleration. Yes, our sport has been increasing in quantity year over year, but our growth rate has been volatile, and we have been constantly decelerating. In other words, our growth rate itself is trending towards zero. This means that we will likely continue to grow by a smaller percentage each year until growth stops or reverses. The only year that fell out and skewed the results was 2004, likely an anomoly as the "Fencing for Fun" members who weren't counted in earlier years took on normal membership types... so the numbers are probably even worse than this.

The only positive aspect of the numbers is that I cross referenced them against the U.S. census since 2000, and our sport is increasing as a percentage of the overall U.S. population... not a lot of solace though since our population is only growing at 1%.

New figures attached.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

But the number of seniors peaked in 1997 at 4853 and is down to 4028 in 2005. <SNIP> While veterans is also a growth market but started from a much smaller base, 65 in 1997 the first year for vets.

That these dates are contemporaneous is NOT coincidental. Split a group into several groups and, unsurprisingly, the sub-group that retains the original name will lose members. All of the vet fencers prior to 1997 were listed as senior members. A smaller group that has also cannibalized the senior numbers is coach members.

-B

[counterattack]

I know some people on this board have experience with other sports' organizations. How does the skew between junior and senior numbers look compared to other sports? I would assume that for, say, football this ratio would look great since that sport tends to age skew to those high school age and younger. Fencing would compare more to, say, tennis I would guess. anybody know what sort of retention rate tennis gets between junior tennis players and seniors? Also, since junior fencers become seniors, and seniors become vets, there might just be a time lag (junior aging into senior, plus getting through college and back into USFA membership) before an attenuated version of the growth curve in juniors shows up in seniors. If not, then some serious work needs to be done. We are definitely not the only sport to lose junior participants to burn out or to real life, but how do other sports mitigate it? Do they even try? Or do they just try and grow numbers in the juniors and assume a certain number will stick with it or come back to it after they get established?

As a piece of info, I started fencing in college, fenced only intermittently in college, and was never a USFA member (I don't think) until after graduation when I started fencing people other than other college students from colleges within 10 miles of mine. This is just to say that the disconnect between juniors and seniors might not be quite as bad as it looks at first glance. I can't imagine that we won't see some of that increase push through into senior numbers in the next five years.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Sorry... but I've had too many business classes to pass this post by. These number are horrible...

Yes, our sport has been increasing in quantity year over year, but our growth rate has been volatile, and we have been constantly decelerating. ... we will likely continue to grow by a smaller percentage each year until growth stops or reverses.

The only positive aspect of the numbers is that I cross referenced them against the U.S. census since 2000, and our sport is increasing as a percentage of the overall U.S. population... not a lot of solace though since our population is only growing at 1%.

So our growth rate has been volatile AND constantly decelerating? And you know we will "likely" come to a stop? Even though as a sub-group we're growing at a greater percentage than the US population itself? (Which, by the way, was addressed just one short week ago in a similar thread.)

Although your passion and enthusiasm for number trend perspective is appreciated, your conclusions seem a little off somehow.

[Mr Epee]

Is the problem not having enough Spanish speaking coaches? Certainly the hispanic community is growing faster than the fencing community is reaching out to them.

Just looking around at the largest competitions - competitive fencing appears to be growing very rapidly among Asians.

This is a very tangled way of looking at things.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Thanks for doing so. It makes for really interesting study. Notice that since 1996 (why 1996) the total membership has almost doubled.

I can't remember when we split Nationals into Div1 & 2, but Div3 and the Vets were added in 1997. I wish there was a further break-down of the membership just according to age. The family memberships can really skew things. 3000+ family memberships=12,000+ members, but only half competitive and how many are juniors or seniors?

[hpfencing]

Originally Posted by Craig

The numbers seem to tell a story of being able to sell fencing to parents for their kids or to the kids for various reasons (it's a good sport, sells well in college applications, etc.), but of having a serious problem with retaining the fencers as life-long participants.

Combine these numbers with the other threads on the challenges of continuing fencing post-college.

Craig

Retention of fencers is tough.. I think it's a love it or hate it sport. Most people try it and leave and never even sign up with USFA. We need to find a way to keep the adults and kiddos.

AtHPF we are trying a family fencing membership option nd trying to get parents to sign up and "help" their kids by learning the sprot to so that they can compete and practice with their kiddos.

So far it seems to be catching on.

[Supermom]

Originally Posted by Craig

The numbers seem to tell a story of being able to sell fencing to parents for their kids or to the kids for various reasons (it's a good sport, sells well in college applications, etc.), but of having a serious problem with retaining the fencers as life-long participants.

Combine these numbers with the other threads on the challenges of continuing fencing post-college.

Craig

Every year during "qualifier season" I am reminded that the largest potential number of fencing opportunities for the Summer Nationals are open to the lowest-rated, very young (Y14) and very old (Vet 60+) fencers. Editing note: As someone below pointed out, I was wrong about the following statement re Summer Nationals, but I'll leave it in so that people know what any follow-up comments are about: " A D-rated Vet 60 fencer could potentially do Div. 3, Div. 2, Div IA, Vet 40+, Vet 50+ and Vet 60+ events". The vets can actually only do ONE of the vet events, that in their particular age group. Sorry - long day! The following is true, provided that there are no conflicts in scheduling, of course. A Y14 fencer of any classification could potentially do Y14, cadet, junior, and Div IA, as well as Div 2 and Div 3 if they were D and under. Both groups have multiple qualifying options for at least some of the events.

So how about the competent, A - or B-rated fencer in his or her prime physical and fencing years, between 20 and 40 years of age? Well, for those not on the senior points list, which would be most of them, they have a choice of ... one event. That would be Div IA, if they didn't blow their one and only chance at the Sectional Qualifier. Hmmm....anyone else find something askew there?

[fencerbill]

The vets can only one age group at summer Championships. They are not 40 Plus, they are 40-49, 50-59 and 60 Plus. At the two NACs they are 40 Plus, 50-59 and 60 Plus, so you could do two, but not many do.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Any business entrepreneur will tell you that you don't look at the numbers themselves, but at growth and, most importantly, acceleration.

I was under the impression that acceleration is change in growth, not the change in the change in growth.

(Physics-- acceleration = (delta) speed, speed = (delta) location)

[Supermom]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

The vets can only one age group at summer Championships. They are not 40 Plus, they are 40-49, 50-59 and 60 Plus. At the two NACs they are 40 Plus, 50-59 and 60 Plus, so you could do two, but not many do.

Yes, you are right, my bad re the Summer Nationals. Not that many would want to do that many anyway!

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Supermom

So how about the competent, A - or B-rated fencer in his or her prime physical and fencing years, between 20 and 40 years of age? Well, for those not on the senior points list, which would be most of them, they have a choice of ... one event. That would be Div IA, if they didn't blow their one and only chance at the Sectional Qualifier. Hmmm....anyone else find something askew there?

Not really. They have the choice of one event at Nationals, but Nationals starts to look less important. Why are they going? Just because it's the "national championship"?

Don't get me wrong, it's a fun tournament, and I really enjoy fencing at national events. (I like fencing different people.) A competent A- or B-rated fencer can go to all three Div I NACs. If they're really trying to do better and improve, then their eventual goal would be to make the senior points list. Thus, they'll either be fencing and doing well at the NACs, or they'll be focused on strong local and regional events throughout the year (such as Pomme de Terre, Crescent City Open, and Longbeach Invitational) where they can fence strong fencers and get ready for the Div I NACs.

Then there's the crowd that's happy to have an A or B, doesn't have any grand goals, and just fences whatever tournaments look like fun and good work. They may or may not care about going to Nationals. But in the 20 years from 20 - 40, they'll attend some Nationals and miss some others. Worst case, if they really want to go and hang out with a bunch of fencers, they can attend and referee...or attend and fence an "off" weapon where they might be able to qualify for Div II or Div III events. Or they just skip a year, save the money, and go to a big regional event the next season.

I don't think that we need to feel too sorry for those A- and B-rated fencers. They're either tearing up the NACs, or they probably have some perspective on their place in the sport.

[KD5MDK]

Or we could just create the Vet 22+ category for Senior fencers who are tired of fencing Juniors, Cadet and college students who train every day.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

I was under the impression that acceleration is change in growth, not the change in the change in growth.

(Physics-- acceleration = (delta) speed, speed = (delta) location)

You can have acceleration of acceleration (delta acceleration [Δ acceleration]), and it's most often referred to as "jerk" when you're talking about velocity. You could even have acceleration of jerk, but I don't know what that would be called.

When you're analyzing data (I'm not a business background just physics but I think it holds true for business), it's important to look at several levels. If you throw an object up in the air, it goes upward, reaches the highest point in its arc and comes back down into your hand. You can make several meaningful graphs of that motion. If you plotted position vs time, you'd get a perfect parabola (the graphs start as soon as the object left your hand and ends right before it arrives at your hand again). If you plotted velocity vs time, you'd get a straight line that pointed diagonally down. If you plotted acceleration, you'd get a straight line that is both horizontal and negative.

You can analyze the graph and see that position was changing both up and down, velocity went down at a constant rate, and when you look at the flat line of acceleration that's the rate at which the velocity descended. Every level of analysis led to some different insight, and they're all important and they're all derived from eachother.

When you get a more complex motion such as membership change, you might have to look at change of change (Δ change), change of change of change, or something even beyond that to make any useful conclusions.

But since I digress, back to what you said: change in something can be said to be acceleration in something a lot of the time. They're not always synonymous, but it is here. So, you're right, acceleration of growth is change in growth, but acceleration of change in growth is change in change in growth and that might be what nyacfencing is talking about.

Edit: I hadn't actually looked at the numbers except a cursory glance, and I see why you're confused. I also don't know what that acceleration is supposed to be, and I would like some clarification. (I think I did pretty well typing all that without actually understanding what the issue was.)

[erooMynohtnA]