Divisionals f&ck ups

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by darius

I've got a bout committee question: how important is separating clubs considered for running tournament purposes?

If this fencing thing was a religion/cult, Spirit of Impartiality would be the highest decree of all. And then actual fencing part would come somewhere in the distance third or fourth in the Order of Nature. Yeah, it's pretty darn important.

Therefore, one pool contained all the members from one club, who evenly beat each other, leaving most of them underseeded. From there, it was upset city as that pool dominated the tableau.

If I walked up to a strip as a referee, and noticed the imbalance with an adjacent strip's pool, it would've definitely raised a Red Flag.

Depending on combination of fencers/clubs/ratings present, after the computer recommends a pool assignment, a considerable effort and time could be spent on reshuffling fencers from pool to pool to even out the potential conflicts. It's a time well spent.

In smaller divisions where "everyone knows everyone," it's that much more tempting to go by honor system and promote mutual respect that everyone is doing their best to be fair. But it only takes one semi-knowledgeable person present to call foul.....

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The way it's been explained to me, If you earn a rating for a national event after you send in your entry, you may still fence, but not for a qualifier. So if you earn a B/A after you send in your DivII/III qual reg but before you fence it (the qualifier), you may not fence the qual, but if you earn the rating at/after the qual, you may still fence a DivII/III event at nationals.

But aren't qualifiers considered to be part (1st round) of nationals? Or does that just apply to D1a sectionals?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by darius

Is separating fencers by club a requirement

I thought so, but other than o.13, I can't find anything. That rules discusses separating fencers of the same nationality, but I assume that we extend it to mean fencers of the same Division (at National events) and same club (at local events).

Of course, those same rules demand 7 person pools (which never happens in my division). I don't organize competitions, so I'm not sure which rules the bout committee is permitted to ignore and which rules are really required.

Originally Posted by darius

which would call the results of the event into question, or is that just tough luck?

Probably not. Lodge an official complaint with your division officers. Send the USFA a copy. Unfortunately, things like this are much more common that anyone would like. Generally, it seems like the national office just uses these situations as an opportunity to remind the divisions of the rules and to try to ensure that the rules are followed in the future. As long as you have no evidence of a deliberate or repeated violation of the organizational rules, especially with an intent to bias the outcome in some way, I don't think that they will invalidate the results.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Brad, question:
<question snipped>

Simple answer is that I don't know. I can see strong justification for any of several possible interpretations (mostly given in other posts responding to your question). I don't know which interpretation is (currently) considered to be valid, nor do I know how strictly it is followed (Nationally you are required to be ratings-eligible at the registration deadline, but in practice they (tend to?) use the receipt date of the registration instead, etc.).

This is the type of question that should be bumped up to the national office level and hope that the answer(s) that come back are consistent each time (which they may or may not be, in my experience, depending on who does the answering and how much checking around with other people there takes place before they do so). Ideally the National Office would compile a FAQ with definite answers that can then be distributed and referred to in the future. Whenever it is decided that an interpretation is no longer functioning the way the organization would like it to the central repository of answers could be modified (hopefully with adequate highlighting of any changes). Even if this were not made into a distributable form it would likely provide a useful resource for the NO staff.

-B

[dberke]

All of these questions about how divisional qualifiers should be run (which keep coming up year after year) just demonstrate how unnecessarily complex the qualification rules are.

Last year, in a thread discussing this topic, I posted a proposal to overhaul the qualifier system that I thought was rather good but went largely unnoticed:
http://www.fencing.net/forums/showth...836#post274836

I think it's time to start discussing alternative systems to the current one, especially if the USFA Tournament Committee is considering an overhaul.

Thoughts?
Dan

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

I honestly think that if a A/B rated fencer really needs that kind of ego boost to fence in a tournament where everyone else is a D and under, then it is just sad. There's also no point to them fencing in it as they can't qualify for anything anyways, still have to do sectionals.

Depends on the Division. I'm a B, but I guarantee that I'd get a worthwhile fight from the Ds and Es in some other Divisions should I move to one. Maybe even the Us. Some areas are so rife with monster fencers that it's hard to get through them to earn ratings...one of the many quirks which makes ratings less than perfect predictors of skill.

[fencerbill]

And the printouts of results at Nationals that also show the classifications provide evidence that some divisions are classification heavy and others are classification light. I believe every classification and every renewal I have gotten in the last 7 years have been at National events. Way, way, way back (about 30 years as Grandpa told me) a New England Division fencer walked into a NYC Epee open as a U and walked out as an A.

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Way, way, way back (about 30 years as Grandpa told me) a New England Division fencer walked into a NYC Epee open as a U and walked out as an A.

Heck, not that long ago (less than 10 yrs) a not-as-strong-at-the-time L.I. fencer walked into a NYC Epee "event," did exceptionally well, and later that day was informed (along with numeorous A's present, who were totally drunk by then) that he's earned an A. Everyone was shocked that the event gave out ratings, no less, as they completely misunderstood the nature of the said event!

In the years to come, the fencer eventually "earned his way" into the "real A fraternity" in "real USFA" tournaments. The whole time, the "real A's" never let him forget how he joined their club. Now he kicks everyone's ass.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Some areas are so rife with monster fencers that it's hard to get through them to earn ratings...one of the many quirks which makes ratings less than perfect predictors of skill.

Small threadjack; Some areas are too small to get above a D. We have a young man who earned his C at last year's Nationals and just earned his A at JOs. Couldn't have done it at home.

[fencerbill]

I can sympathize. Part of our problem is that we are constipated for A's. And the few A's we have aren't great about participating. So the most competitive people can't improve and neither can the ones just below them. So the B's keep renewing at the New Year's Day Hangover Open and it trickles down so the C's can't do much better and neither can the D's. We will have Sabre Opens where 80% of the 30 or so people have D's or better.

[RebelFencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Depends on the Division. I'm a B, but I guarantee that I'd get a worthwhile fight from the Ds and Es in some other Divisions should I move to one. Maybe even the Us. Some areas are so rife with monster fencers that it's hard to get through them to earn ratings...one of the many quirks which makes ratings less than perfect predictors of skill.

I'll give you that, I made an overgeneralization. For this particular division that was not the case.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

Thats totally unfair to the fencers who are trying to qualify for Div II/III!! Take the case of fencer A who meets one of those As/Bs in the first DE and gets knocked out. If they had fenced someone else --who was actually eligible ratings wise to fence in Div 3 at S Nats--they might have won that DE. <snip>

I would think that a fencer who got knocked out by the A/B at a Div II qualifier would have grounds for an appeal, especially if they can show that they've eaten "C" and "D" fencers for lunch at prior events.

Originally Posted by hello?

I think Div 2 and 3 should be split....I think they were combined when everyone automatically qualified for Div 3, but now it's different..

I agree. I think don't think "D" and under fencers should have to deal with "C" fencers in the pools and DEs at Div III qualifying events. Consider the GA qualifiers for this year. The DivII/III events are separated, but if they were combined, there would be 11 "C" fencers in the event, which would probably translate to 1-2 "C" fencers in each pool. Every single "U", "E", and "D" fencer would therefore have to fence a "C" at least once (probably 2-3 times, in reality) in order to qualify for a D/Under event.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I agree. I think don't think "D" and under fencers should have to deal with "C" fencers in the pools and DEs at Div III qualifying events. Consider the GA qualifiers for this year. The DivII/III events are separated, but if they were combined, there would be 11 "C" fencers in the event, which would probably translate to 1-2 "C" fencers in each pool. Every single "U", "E", and "D" fencer would therefore have to fence a "C" at least once (probably 2-3 times, in reality) in order to qualify for a D/Under event.

Of course, having separate Div II and Div III qualifiers often means fewer people in the Div II qualifier, resulting in fewer Div II qualifiers (25% of the field). For example, looking at the pre-registrations, about half of the Div III men's foil fencers won't be in the Div II men's foil. That means that there are only (by current numbers) 5 qualifying spots and 8 Cs at the event. If instead you were able to have all of those fencers in one event, you'd have a Div II/III qualifier with 31 fencers, meaning 8 qualifying spots. Enough for all of the Cs and perhaps a better chance for one of the non-Cs to upset a C and qualify Div II.

At the NC Divisionals, we should have 15 Div II qualifiers and 12 Div III qualifiers in the combined men's foil event. I know that some of these fencers would not fence two separate events. In that case, holding a combined event can increase the total number of qualifiers from the division. While the Div III qualifiers have to fence Cs, they only need to make something like the top 32 to qualify Div III (say 15 + 12 + some auto-qualifiers + some Div II qualifiers that didn't make the top 15).

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by tbryan

Of course, having separate Div II and Div III qualifiers often means fewer people in the Div II qualifier, resulting in fewer Div II qualifiers (25% of the field). ...(snip)

I guess the bottom line is that combined events make it easier to qualify for Div II, while seperate events make it easier for fencers (or at least some of 'em) qualify for Div III.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I guess the bottom line is that combined events make it easier to qualify for Div II, while seperate events make it easier for fencers (or at least some of 'em) qualify for Div III.

That's the thing, separating the events DOESN'T make it easier to qualify to Div III for the average fencer. The fencers that it helps are those D and under fencers who do well against other D and under fencers but get pounded by C fencers (to a significantly greater degree than the average D and under fencer). While there are occasional people in that situation they are a small minority. A similar-sized minority is those D and under fencers that do significantly better against C opponents than the average D and under fencer). These two group balance out, netting no change.

Splitting the events tends to make the events smaller as some (D and under) fencers will be uninterested in fencing two events back-to-back and will self-select to compete in only one event -- or will qualify via the first event (D2, generally) and not compete in the second, reducing the number of qualifying slots available for direct D3 qualification.

I guess splitting also benefits those that are better conditioned and capable of fencing two back-to-back tournaments at the expense of their lesser conditioned brethren. Again doesn't make it easier to qualify on average, merely shifts who is likely to qualify.

-B

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Splitting the events tends to make the events smaller as some (D and under) fencers will be uninterested in fencing two events back-to-back and will self-select to compete in only one event -- or will qualify via the first event (D2, generally) and not compete in the second, reducing the number of qualifying slots available for direct D3 qualification.

I thought the number of D3 qualifiers were calculated from the number of entries eligible for D3, not from the total entries in mixed D2/3 qualifying tournaments.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by Poulet

If they were split up, div3-eligible people who qualified for div2 would likely not fence in the div3 qualifier.

...unless the Div 3 qulaifer was held before the Div 2 qulaifer.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

I thought the number of D3 qualifiers were calculated from the number of entries eligible for D3, not from the total entries in mixed D2/3 qualifying tournaments.

Right.

Look at the example I gave above again. The problem is that with split qualifiers, many of the Div III participants don't fence in the Div II qualifier. So there are fewer Div II qualifiers. Unless you have a lot of Div III fencers scared away by a C-rated fencer (not likely), the number of DIv III qualifiers is generally the same no matter which way the qualifiers are held.

Of course, in oiuyt's example, if the Div II qualifier is held first, some of those fencers may qualify for Div III via the Div II event. In that case, they have less incentive to fence the Div III qualifier. So, it is possible for there to be fewer Div III qualifiers with split events.

The point that I was trying to make was that if the division wants to maximize the total number of fencers qualified for Div II and Div III events at Nationals, it seems like the best strategy is to hold a combined Div II and III qualifying event.

[CaptainA]

Originally Posted by fencerX

The Nevada division runs its division qualifier events for summer nationals allowing As and Bs to fence in the same event used for determining Div II/III qualiiers. For example, one of last year's Nevada's "Div II/III" qualifiers was supposedly an A1 event that qualified one fencer for both Div III/II and got him his B.

http://web0.greatbasin.net/~nevdiv/2...vresults05.htm

Apparently having Tanya Brown in your division means you don't have to follow the same rules that other divisions must follow.

Take a look at that table again. Without the non-Div2/3 qualifiers, there are 12 fencers- it's not even a C tournament. Instead, it's a bigger, better event, and you get to fence the best fencers in the Division. Bear in mind that half our division travels 480 miles each year to attend the qualifiers. You want separate d2, D3, qualifiers, and separate D1 as well? Better get a vets qualifier as well. In a small division, we don't have a lot of events, because the numberr of qualified fencers doesn't equal the number of slots (U16, U19 for example, for JO qualifiers.)

we're dealing with life and the facts, not with some "theory" about how a D fencer "might" have lost a slot because of who he/she had to fence in the DE's. That's the whole point of posting results all the way down, and it makes every touch count all day, because if you are a "lower" fencer, who will go out in the DE's, that seeding coming out of pools is pretty important.

As to having Tanya in your division, it means that your qualifiers get run on time, registration is taken care of, and the results get posted. Frankly, the people who complain about stuff like this don't want to run the tournament, they just wnat to complain about how somebody esle runs it.