Fencing Incest Breeding As and Bs?

[JEC]

Originally Posted by Phaeton

... it seems that even USCF (Us Chess Federation...ack) can manage to have their act together enough to post online ratings, despite being perhaps one of the most corrupt ....

Yes, they do, but they're a bunch of geeks!

[Supermom]

Originally Posted by 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.
Shlep.

There are two newer clubs in NJ (Morristown and Mendham), which have addressed exactly that problem by devoting themselves to the competitive needs of the Div II and/or Div III fencer. Info on the clubs/tournaments can be found on www.njfencing.org. Every couple of weeks they run tournaments for the D-and-under, E-and-under or U fencer. So far this season they have produced an impressive number of C's, D's and E's. These tournaments, usually held on a Friday night, regularly draw 20 - 30 or more fencers per weapon and/or gender, demonstrating the tremendous interest in this type of competitive opportunity as well as the ever-increasing popularity of fencing in the state. Occasionally, if numbers warrant, the existing field is split into two simultaneous tournaments, doubling the possible number of ratings. Also, there are a number of ratings-restricted tournaments held by other clubs at various times, and sometimes consolation rounds if there is time and interest after a main tournament (including at BCAF) for interested fencers who have lost their first DE, and those often produce an E. So, fortunately, there are now plenty of local opportunities for fencers to get their feet on the rungs of the ratings ladder, without having to cross swords with the alphabetically gifted!

[KD5MDK]

I take it the NJ Division isn't concerned particularly with there being suddenly two tournaments held when only one was on the calendar? Or do you mean events?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I take it the NJ Division isn't concerned particularly with there being suddenly two tournaments held when only one was on the calendar? Or do you mean events?

At least some divisions advertise in advance that certain events might be split if numbers break 30 (I know Northeast division does this for U events). While I don't believe that NJ does, in theory they could (and, in fact, they could in practice and I might just be unaware of the practice).

A few years ago New England division considered such a policy at the prompting of a member who had formerly been a member of the Northeast Division and decided that contributing to classification inflation in this manner wasn't something that the division was interested in encouraging.

-B

[Supermom]

As far as I know, this splitting of one tournament into two events (would that be the correct terminology? forgive me if I am wrong, but I hope you know what I mean) is not very frequent. Usually it's done when there are at least 30 fencers, so that there can be two simultaneous 15-or-so person (D1-rated) events comprised of E and under or U fencers, with the possibility of generating a total of 2 D's and 6 E's. I don't know whether it's advertised as such, or just understood that this is a possibility given the numbers, time available and so forth. There was one such in February at Morristown FC, and my son participated in one (a U epee ) a couple or three years ago where they split it into two groups with no prior announcement.

[keropie]

Right, but I think the argument is the splitting the field is almost always nothing other than an attempt to manufacture more ratings, which should probably be avoided. The only other possible reason would be to reduce the total number of bouts, since I guess it decreases your DE tree by one <.<

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by keropie

Right, but I think the argument is the splitting the field is almost always nothing other than an attempt to manufacture more ratings, which should probably be avoided. The only other possible reason would be to reduce the total number of bouts, since I guess it decreases your DE tree by one <.<

Actually it would just reduce the total number of DE bouts by one... Essentially, you're skipping the final.

[shlepzig]

There are two newer clubs in NJ (Morristown and Mendham), which have addressed exactly that problem by devoting themselves to the competitive needs of the Div II and/or Div III fencer. Info on the clubs/tournaments can be found on www.njfencing.org.

I have seen those events on the schedule. I think that these are nice events in the area, several of the kids I fence with have gone to these, and earned some of these ratings.

I have had a couple of problems with them. The first is that these are all held early on friday night. I am a grown-up and have a job and kids, and a long commute. So I am not able to make any (though I would rather take my son to compete in one) of these events unless I happen to have the day off. When I happened to have the day off one time, I checked on AskFred and the entrants where capped at 24, after that nobody could sign up online. Most of the people signed up in the slots were from the hosting club. I had the option to put my son on the alternate list, but then I drive out to the site wondering if I can fence or not.

Lastly, I have fenced many of the people with their D's and E's from these tournaments. Some are really capable fencers, some have inflated ratings. I don't think that the fencers are properly served by arranging the tournaments to maximize the ratings given. The cream, as they say, will rise to the top.

I do appreciate that these groups have made these tournaments available. I agree that it is valuble to our younger fencers to have the opportunity to fence in tournaments where they have a chance of winning without having to face one of the many A's that turn out for opens. I do think it is equally important that they take the opportunities they have to face the local A's and B's in open events.

Shlep

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by shlepzig

I am a grown-up and have a job and kids, and a long commute. So I am not able to make any (though I would rather take my son to compete in one) of these events unless I happen to have the day off.

Better to have the tournaments in addition to the weekend events than to not have them at all. It's not like weekends are being left open because all of the tournament capacity/demand is being filled on weekdays.

-B

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by keropie

Right, but I think the argument is the splitting the field is almost always nothing other than an attempt to manufacture more ratings, which should probably be avoided.

I agree that it's probably "an attempt to manufacture more ratings", but I'm not sure that's something to be avoided. If each classification is defined as "good enough to get X place in a competition of Y strength", does it matter that a group of competitors was divided so as to create two "competitions of Y strength", rather than just one?

If an unclassified fencer wins a competition with 6 competitors and earns an E, is that not what the USFA had in mind for the E classification? This fencer is able to beat 5 other fencers in a competition. So, if there are 12 fencers present, and the group is divided into two competitions of 6, hasn't the winner of each of those competitions proved she can beat 5 other fencers in a competition? Don't they both deserve that E classification?

I don't see how you can argue otherwise, unless you say that earning a classification should require more than just what's written on the classification chart -- not just placing appropriately in a competition of rated strength, but also beating the odds: having a competition within practical distance that is most likely stronger than minimum the stated requirement for the classification, and doing even better in it than might be expected. That effectively deflates classifications, since to earn a letter you have to be even better than the minimum requirement as stated on the classification chart.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

I've actually heard a decent number of NYC metro area fencers complaining of the inflated ratings there too. Basically the way it works is that there are places where you go where the tournaments are ridiculously hard, and places where they aren't but at all of them have highly rated fencers. If you really want a rating in NY you can just go to local tournaments and fence and you'll get it by chance eventually, or something relativley high. This is especially true b/c alot of the highly ranked national fencers skip the tourneys and go to practice so really you have A tournaments that aren't as hard as they "should be" especially in NY.

The NYAC generally has 6 epee events a season. I averaged the 4 we have had so far this season to find that the average epee event has 33 fencers with 10 A's. The only person to win one this season who wasn't somewhere in the top 20 on the US point list was Mykhaylo Mokretsov of the Ukraine...

Here were the champions of the last 9 events (including some from last season):
Abend (won 5)
Mokretsov
Zucker
Hurme
Viviani

I am open to anybody pointing out which one of these was "inflated". There are rarely any other epee events in the division, and almost never any A-rated ones.

[RoninX]

I don't know that this NY/NJ thing is really the ideal example of inflated/deflated rankings. There is such a large and diverse pool of fencers in the area that it actually seems to be a ideal circumstance in which to operate the current USFA ranking system.

HOWEVER - there are many other places (read: just about anywhere else in the US) where the pool is not so deep and it is THOSE locations that are "in danger" of having their ratings artificially depressed or increase based on the existing ratings or imported ratings of visitors/new arrivals.

Which was my original point...

So maybe it isn't actually specifically incest, it is more like dominant or recessive allele group suddenly hit by a new gene pool - someone actually married outside the valley(!).

Anyway... I am interested on the rating scene in the NY/NJ area it just may not apply to what I was trying to get at.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

The NYAC generally has 6 epee events a season. I averaged the 4 we have had so far this season to find that the average epee event has 33 fencers with 10 A's. The only person to win one this season who wasn't somewhere in the top 20 on the US point list was Mykhaylo Mokretsov of the Ukraine...

Here were the champions of the last 9 events (including some from last season):
Abend (won 5)
Mokretsov
Zucker
Hurme
Viviani

I am open to anybody pointing out which one of these was "inflated". There are rarely any other epee events in the division, and almost never any A-rated ones.

Dude, chill pill, take one....if you go back and reread the post I specifically noted that there are some places, where the tournaments are ridiculously hard, and some where there are not. The AC is not the only place where you have local tourneys in the Metro division. I mean really if you want me to continue singing the praises of AC epee just let me know, everyone knows that the AC is the only place to earn an A in NYC if you want all the other elite epeeists to think your A is legit etc etc etc...but that being said there are still plenty of instances of random ratings inflation occurring in clubs that aren't AC or (depending on weapon and attendance) FC. I could probably find a few instances but since its not really my personal stomping grounds I just defer to the opinions of the friends I have in the area that fence there. Happy?

[JEC]

Also keep in mind that Hurme (Princeton) and Zucker (Columbia) came from Texas.