Fencing Incest Breeding As and Bs?

[sabreteur]

Originally Posted by RoninX

...Thoughts on this phenomenon? Do you believe that it happens at all?

Not damn near often enough for sabre.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by sabreteur

Not damn near often enough for sabre.

If you look at the distribution of classifications with age, the broadest curve is for Epee, followed by Foil and then dragging their @$$, Sabre. The curve for Sabre peaks at a younger age and the number of A's is least.

Alas, it is a young (wo)man's game.

[Supermom]

Originally Posted by RoninX

I know this is not a new topic, but I'm curious to hear people's opinions on these circumstances. A couple of imported (recently moved in to town) As or Bs that regularly attend opens start raising the tourney rating thus granting more Cs and Ds who in turn raise the tourney levels of C/D and under tournament meaning everyone is getting more letters and all tournaments are becoming more highly rated.

Within a couple of years those imported As have turned E/D fencers into Cs (and maybe in some cases high Ds might become low Bs) while the actual skill level of the region is not dramatically effected it is suddenly a highly rated region.

Sometimes this passes and sometimes the initial upswing can be maintained and keep a region rating heavy for years. Thoughts on this phenomenon? Do you believe that it happens at all?

I think the discussion has wandered off the initial premise a bit, which is why I quoted the first post. First off, my sons fence at BCAF, one of them is an epee fencer, and so I am well acquainted with the fencers there. Definitely there were some overdue A's there - but that's because a lot of the grown-ups who fence there have real-life things like jobs and families to support, so they can't necessarily get to fence at all the tournaments where A's are to be had. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to get them any way other than beating a club mate! It's just made it a little easier, perhaps, being closer to home. Now that there has been an increase in their number, yes, you would expect that enough will be able to make it to local (as opposed to something requiring a lot of travel) tournaments and "raise the bar" as it were. And that's for everyone who goes to a tournament there, and Goldgar is right that it's not just club mates.

But I think Ronin is also right, in that A's and B's, because they fit into that "and higher" category of classification, do raise the tone all the way down the line, and the more you have the more you can get potentially get. And the more other classifications you can generate too. However, I think the "incest" remark was meant to refer to the divisional or regional level, not the club level. Raising the "tone" of a division is not a bad thing, especially a huge one like NJ, where the actual number of people who fence is growing by leaps and bounds, and there are some excellent clubs to train at which are developing some excellent fencers. And there is no reason why people from other "less well endowed" areas, classification-wise, can't come and fence there in opens too. As Basquet pointed out, the club is in a great location for fencers from (especially) the Philly division (some top notch epeeists there too, including cadet world cup champ Graham Wicas), and the surrounding states. They would be warmly welcomed! Then they can bring their newly-earned ratings home with them and start sharing the wealth in their own divisions/regions, etc.

Finally, someone else said that ratings ultimately don't matter all that much ...and they are right too. Fence the person, not the rating! Over the long term, the cream does rise to the top...even in epee.

Just my two cents...

[shlepzig]

Just to be a bit of a curmudgeon:

What about when you have so many rated fencers at local tournaments you have to fight your way through a field of A's and B's just to get to the D or E level in a tournament. This would suppress the distribution of C and Below fencers such that a fencer may be fencing well above that level without having the rating to match.

Take the recent Easter Egg tournament at BCAF (Disclaimer: I fence and compete there as well and do enjoy it because of the high level of fencing there). There were a total of 5A's and 10B's at a tournament of 34 fencers. This was an A2 tournament, so there were classifications given to the top 12 fencers. Of those top 12, 11 were A's and B's. A single D cracked the top 8 and earned his C, which was certainly well deserved. For a U to have earned an E rating that day he would have had to defeat an A or B fencer in the DE to make the top 12. Any rating earned that day would have been well deserved.

Another poster earlier said this was the case in NYC where there are so many A's and B's that to make it into ratings territory is a monumental task.

Overall I think the system enforces a certain balance. Once the quality of fencing in an area achieves a certain level everybody benefits and ratings follow. Eventually there are enough deserved ratings around that a fencer has to reach for a high bar to attain any sort of rating, maintaining a high level of fencing in the area.

The moral of this story is the same old thing. People with ability will earn the coincident rating eventually, and ratings are just ratings which are abstract at best.

Also, fence as many tough fencers as you possibly can, and you will be better for it.

Lastly, if you have a chance to fence at BCAF do so. They have a wonderful facility with nice folks and run a good tournament.

Shlep.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by shlepzig

Take the recent Easter Egg tournament at BCAF (Disclaimer: I fence and compete there as well and do enjoy it because of the high level of fencing there). There were a total of 5A's and 10B's at a tournament of 34 fencers. This was an A2 tournament, so there were classifications given to the top 12 fencers. Of those top 12, 11 were A's and B's. A single D cracked the top 8 and earned his C, which was certainly well deserved. For a U to have earned an E rating that day he would have had to defeat an A or B fencer in the DE to make the top 12. Any rating earned that day would have been well deserved.

Yeah, but that's what limited rating tournaments are for. An area with that much fencing can hold U events and consistently get 15, or a D and under C2 event, which is probably the easiest way to get a rating. I agree that it's still harder, but getting the lower ratings is possible, as opposed to areas devoid of As and Bs, where getting those ratings is impossible.

[JEC]

That is why I had suggested earlier that the easiest manner to significantly improve the system is to award a modifier of how many times that classification has been earned (i.e.: A06-8 vs A06-1). The modifier could be 8 times that an A letter was earned during past 4 years, or during the '06 year as in this case. Seeding fencers with similar letters (A's, or E's in a E and under tournament) would be improved.

At the Div. I NAC, we had 96 A's and about 40 something B's. People were ranked by national points... However, that only helped to the top 61 (everybody but one was an A); what about the other 36 A's?

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by JEC

That is why I had suggested earlier that the easiest manner to significantly improve the system is to award a modifier of how many times that classification has been earned (i.e.: A06-8 vs A06-1). The modifier could be 8 times that an A letter was earned during past 4 years, or during the '06 year as in this case. Seeding fencers with similar letters (A's, or E's in a E and under tournament) would be improved.

A number of systems have been proposed over the years, including the numeric rating system that (I believe) George Masin was pushing. All the ones I've heard of so far, including yours, have been clearly superior to the current one if successfully implemented.

But there's the rub. They require more constant communication between local divisions and the national office. Sure, the national office is going to know the results of all the sanctioned competitions (if the division secretaries do their jobs), so the national office will know each fencer's latest and greatest rating. But is the national office going to send out a new membership card each time a fencer re-earns a classification that they've already earned this year? That would be prohibitively expensive, it seems to me. Assuming they don't do that, only national events are likely to benefit from the refined classification system.

I'm very hopeful that the increasing interconnectedness of the world will eventually make this problem go away. Ideally, there would be some way of keeping a membership "smart card" up to date, or else do away with the membership card entirely in favor of some biometric identification online. Under those conditions, a fencer's classification or numeric rating could be adjusted with every competition, and still be known wherever the next event might take place. I think it will be a while before we get there, though.

[KD5MDK]

The only real way to deal with this is if there is a consistantly updated list of rankings, and the day before every tournament the organizers download a copy to their computer. It would have to be updated every week, and reliably available, and the organizers would have to use it.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


In case of two fencers having the same letter rating, the same rating achievement year, and the same # of National points:

Is there any rule prohibiting a competition organizer using the LetterYear-x system proposed by JEC as a tiebreaker when seeding?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

In case of two fencers having the same letter rating, the same rating achievement year, and the same # of National points:

Is there any rule prohibiting a competition organizer using the LetterYear-x system proposed by JEC as a tiebreaker when seeding?

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm too lazy to go chase down the exact rule right now), seeding when all determining factors are equal is "arbitrary". Note that arbitrary is not the same as random. As I interpret that, organizers can seed such competitors any way they like, so they can base their seeding on the "letter-year-x" information if it's available.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The only real way to deal with this is if there is a consistantly updated list of rankings, and the day before every tournament the organizers download a copy to their computer. It would have to be updated every week, and reliably available, and the organizers would have to use it.

That would work well, but it presumes

1. Every tournament is run with a computer
2. The national office receives all results via electronic data transfer in a common format

That doesn't sound unreasonable, though there would have to be standardization of the data formats (FencingTime, anyone?). I wonder how many competitions are still being run on paper?

[JEC]

This is another reason why USFA should seriously consider hiring AskFred.net. Pete has developed a website that is reliable and works well.

The concern about security/validity could be solved by just adding another layer for USFA certification of the results. Organizers could post results, and the divisional secretaries will still fax to USFA classification changes. Once USFA approves them, they could certify the new rating online. Fencers will be happier to use their new rating sooner.

Having this type of system, would then allow to implement a refinement such as the proposed Letteryear-X.

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

But is the national office going to send out a new membership card each time a fencer re-earns a classification that they've already earned this year? That would be prohibitively expensive, it seems to me. Assuming they don't do that, only national events are likely to benefit from the refined classification system.

But that isn't necessary. I don't get a new card in the mail everytime I earn a letter, but I just tell the guy at the sign up table why my rating has changed, if it has. If anyone wants to check you can always contact the USFA.

If I earn a B 3 times in 06 then it shows up on my next card as B-06-5 or whatever. If you want a card issued with your new rating then the USFA could pretty easily add a card request feature where you pay $5 online or via mail to have them send out your new card... but I just don't think it would be that huge a problem.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by RoninX

But that isn't necessary. I don't get a new card in the mail everytime I earn a letter, but I just tell the guy at the sign up table why my rating has changed, if it has. If anyone wants to check you can always contact the USFA.

On just your verbal say-so? That wouldn't be good enough at any event I've ever been to. Locally, we accept cards that have been amended and signed by a meet manager, or the word of AskFRED (even though it's unofficial), or even the testimony of a known, reliable individual -- not the fencer himself, nor his mom. But we wouldn't just take the fencer's word for it, even if we know him or her personally. And we're not in a position to contact the USFA during registration for a competition, to find out what some fencer's current classification is.

If I earn a B 3 times in 06 then it shows up on my next card as B-06-5 or whatever. If you want a card issued with your new rating then the USFA could pretty easily add a card request feature where you pay $5 online or via mail to have them send out your new card... but I just don't think it would be that huge a problem.

That might be a solution, but I think a more likely one is for the USFA to make the information readily available via their web site, and for tournament organizers to get the information there before an event. Sure, if they are connected to the Net while they're taking entries, that would ensure the absolutely latest official classifications; if not, even if they're running the event on paper, surely they can get relatively up-to-date info online at some point before the event.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

The whole "card" idea is too old fashioned. The best way to do this would be automatically, where the organizer sends in the results via FRED, which checks them against the USFA database of membership data. It then reasons out the correct change of data, and ratifies the database accordingly. It would not be very difficult, it would just require that all tournaments use FRED. It would save the USFA money, since they would not have to send out new cards when someone earns a rating. This would also take a burden off of the national office.

[mrbiggs]

JEC's proposal (so far as I know, it was his originally) could probably be implemented and used very easily with askfred.net, which is already in place. There would need to be a few changes to it to allow for the other variable, and modification of ratings would need to be only done by BCs, but most fencers and tournaments are already in there. Tournaments without internet access could require preregistration, or just say upfront that they're assuming it was only earned once at the door.

Not that the usfa would do such a sensical thing...

(oops, DFP just said this)

[Inquartata]

I do see one problem with JEC's modifier: it would rank a middling fencer who places in a lot of tournaments higher than a superb fencer of the same letter rank who for one reason or another goes to only a couple of tournaments but wins them all. You still don't necessarily get a more accurate picture of who's better or should be seeded higher based on skill. It just takes a bias in favor of those who can afford more competitions of the sort which award certain ratings...

[JEC]

Inq.

You're right. No system is perfect, but the modification that I propose improves the current system. Ratings are intended to seed pools more fairly to all competitors. If an elite russian fencer compete in a local tournament, it is likely that she/he will screw up some pool due to a loaded/poorly seeded U fencer.

Nevertheless, the point that I want to convey with the new system is that
somebody who has re-earned 20 times their A rating over the past 4 years is probably a better fencer than a newcomer who earned their A this year. The current system would consider them as equal to each other if there are no national points.

Now, regarding what to use for modifier, one possibility is the number of times that rating has been re-earned that year, but as the duration of letters is 4 years, it would be consistent to add the number for the letter re-earning for that duration.

Best regards,

JEC

[Jason]

I think what the USFA needs is a sorcerer who can magically seed everyone by their absolute strengths--thereby bolstering everyone's sense of self through his wizarding ways!

If we don't demand that the USFA find a perfect way to objectively measure our fencing abilities, we may, at some point, be forced to fence strong fencers when we don't want to! Unacceptable!

[Phaeton]

Although, to reiterate what we very should well demand is the USFA work over the internet and not over mail. The fact that I've gotten entry confirmation items mailed to me *AFTER* a tournament has taken place says something about the USFA's act not being together in this regard.

How hard is it to make an online database with an individual's rank, past earned rank, and perhaps national ranking, as well as federation standing. It'd make everyone's life