USFA membership/website/rating system update

[T]

The idea of ranking individuals by a numerical score depends on exactly how points are calculated and earned. Right now, the point system (for the national rankings) is very convoluted. Since this point system (I assume) will be used to rank fencers (at least for anyone with national points) it seems apparent that the system needs a major overhaul. The current point system has been in existence since the 1970s and includes Group I and Group II, NACs, Designated and nonDesignated World Cup events, and European B tournaments. Until this point system is redeveloped the whole idea of ranking people on points is ridiculous.

My proposal would be to assign strength factors to all tournaments - national and international, local, regional - everything - and the strength factors would be assigned based on who is in attendance (and what their ranking is in FIE, National, or regional standings). If by some chance the Longhorn Open gets the top 10 ranked fencers in the world to come to their tournament, this event should be given the strength factor to reflect it. (Uh oh, does this mean that the USFA might not maintain their monopoly on on our ability to get domestic points?). This sytem would also mean that regionalization of tournaments would actually have some overall meaning.

The point system could then reflect an athlete's top 5 performances (or 3 or 6 or whatever) for the year - period. No Designated and nondesignated, no Group I or II, etc. Certainly some tournaments (perhaps Grand Prix or National or World Championships) might be given a bonus element for strength factor but nonetheless, the idea would still be the same (this is where the USFA can re-establish their monopoly). As stated above in another post, the points could be cut by 90% (or other number) at the end of the season, etc.

With this kind of system, an athlete can plan their season to fit their schedule and not worry about what events have been designated or not designated or whether they have to come back to the US from Europe for a NAC even though it is sandwiched between two World Cup events. In addition, they wouldn't have to worry about whether an international event (that has been designated) meets the criteria for Group II, etc. (ie, spending all that money to go to a junior world cup designated tournament to find out that only 9 of the top 32 athletes are present). They also wouldn't have to chase points all over the world. They get their top 5 results. Right now, the cadet fencers are affected the most because they have the most number of tournaments to protect against (10 domestic events + junior and senior world cups). If the idea of Designated and nonDesignated events was supposed to keep people from chasing points, then someone should tell the USFA that chasing Group I points is expensive too ($420 airfare to Atlanta in July - you can get to Budapest in Jan or Feb for only $100 more)!

As a side note: Isn't it ridiculous that a junior and cadet fencer cannot earn Group I points without competing in a NAC (unless they are kicking some serious butt in Senior World Cup events)? This means that a junior fencer can't go and spend an extended period of time in Europe because only 4 junior world cup events are designated and there is no chance of any junior world cup events rolling to Group I. This may apply to only a few top fencers but why needlessly restrict the ones that have the most talent?

As it stands now, each of the 6 weapons has a different point system structure -- this is ridiculous. Especially in light of the fact that the funding system is the same for all (but that is another story).

So until the point system is recalibrated, the whole idea of ranking people by points is premature.

[misha]

If you take into account the USFA's track record on keeping and updating the USFA website, proposing a far-reaching numerical system with weekly changes due to a multitude of regional tournaments does not sound too promising!

Exactly my point!
Supporting accurate online database is not cheap
USFA does not have resources for that

Plus I have another one:

How do you deal with seeding local events?
If we do not allow "walk-ins" it will significantly reduce participation
Otherwise there will be an issue with defining ratings of "walk-ins"

Now we have a card, which is sent every time a rating letter/year is changed...
That does not happen too often.

There are few options, but I do not see a cheap one:

1) Mail a card to everybody with a rating every week
USPS will be happy

2) Require internet connection on site for every USFA sanctioned event
I doubt that it is possible, at least for a few years

3) Before every event organisers will have to save complete rating lists
on some portable device and then search this data before seeding...
May be it is most possible solution, but still will cost a lot more compared
to paper seeding


.

[oiuyt]

How do you deal with seeding local events?
If we do not allow "walk-ins" it will significantly reduce participation
Otherwise there will be an issue with defining ratings of "walk-ins"

I don't know how it's currently done, but when I played tournament chess (up until ~12 years ago) the USCF sent out a book with each member's rating quarterly to tournament organizers. The most recent ratings book was used to seed each tournament, the exact rating was used to compute ratings changes once the USCF received results. This, of course, meant that the ratings used for seeding would always be just a bit off from the actual current rating, but they were close enough. Certainly at least on the same level as the variations just because someone had randomly bounced up or down a bit or was having a better/worse day than usual. And considerably less variation than we currently experience with the complete lack of granularity and "high water mark"-style system that fencing uses now.

Since no massive change is likely to happen without taking a couple of years (at the very least because it takes at least a year to finalize and at least a year of testing (presumably as a "shadow" ratings while the current system is still in use), not to mention any implementation time), doubting that it will be possible for at least a few years is a poor reason to avoid having the discussion now.

-B

[JEC]

2) Require internet connection on site for every USFA sanctioned event
I doubt that it is possible, at least for a few years

3) Before every event organisers will have to save complete rating lists
on some portable device and then search this data before seeding...
May be it is most possible solution, but still will cost a lot more compared
to paper seeding

These two options imply that the USFA internet database would be available. Actually, the webmaster of the Southwest section does a very good job having almost monthly updates to the Section's database.
see: http://www.southwestfencing.org/Ratings/

Now, a question for Brad,
Has the proposal of adding number of times the letter is renewed (i.e: A06-X) been discussed at the BOD or other task force?
see:
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post354832-16.html
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post354832.html
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post405557.html
This idea could be an intermediate experimental approach between the ELO and current systems.

[tchwojko]

Thinking out loud:

What about keeping the simple ABCDEU system nationally (low overhead, low complexity nationally), and allowing divisions to do the standardized number system locally? (You probably don't want a different ranking system for each division.)

The local divisions can keep their own databases up to date, keep in communication with the local tournaments. (And the national office too, maybe?)

For local tournaments, seed first by letter, then by local number. The NACs already have point lists for the top fencers and don't need the local numbers (which might not be relevant), and can use the letters for everything else.

[KD5MDK]

That sounds to me like it combines the disadvantages of each system.

[epeemike81]

Of all the people here, [Inquartata] would have been one of the last I would have expected to toss off such overreaching accusations of deception.

Have you been paying attention??

-m

[oiuyt]

Now, a question for Brad,
Has the proposal of adding number of times the letter is renewed (i.e: A06-X) been discussed at the BOD or other task force?
see:
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post354832-16.html
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post354832.html
http://www.fencing.net/forums/post405557.html
This idea could be an intermediate experimental approach between the ELO and current systems.

Not to my knowledge.

I missed the TF meeting the Thursday prior to JO's, which included a brain-storming bit, but I suspect that little-to-no discussion about ratings/calssifications/rankings took place there. The discussion paper including the numeric system did not come directly from that session (which certainly doesn't mean that such wasn't discussed there, but I know the genesis of that paper was elsewhere).

-B

[JEC]

Not to my knowledge.

I missed the TF meeting the Thursday prior to JO's, which included a brain-storming bit, but I suspect that little-to-no discussion about ratings/calssifications/rankings took place there. The discussion paper including the numeric system did not come directly from that session (which certainly doesn't mean that such wasn't discussed there, but I know the genesis of that paper was elsewhere).

-B

How such proposal could get to the correct group of ears? Would that be for the NAC task force to deal with? Would an email to Massik be helpful?
Thanks,
JEC

[tchwojko]

That sounds to me like it combines the disadvantages of each system.

Could be. It was a response to those who worry about the capabilities of the national office being able to keep up.

It also assumes that finer granularity = better. I don't have a problem with the current letter system, seems close enough for seedings.

It would be nice if there were a coherent set of (public) requirements for a rating system before trying to implement something. I would hope the process is something like:
Member A: "The current rating system is deficient in the following ways: (problems go here). An ideal rating system should satisfy the following: (requirements go here)."
Members A, B, and C go off (or delegate) and find existing solutions and report: "Solutions X, Y and Z, solve these problems: (list), and have these problems (list)."
Some group comes up with systems X2, Y2, Z2 (based on X, Y and Z) that have pros and cons.
A short list is chosen and submitted to the board with the whole process reasonably documented.

But I won't hold my breath.

[oiuyt]

How such proposal could get to the correct group of ears? Would that be for the NAC task force to deal with? Would an email to Massik be helpful?
Thanks,
JEC

Depends on one's definition of "correct".

Classification systems per se aren't directly a part of the Tournament Task Force's purview. The discussion document that deals with them addresses them as a topic that could be used to help with determining entrance qualifications for national events. Many things in fencing organization are dependent on many other things, and in this case using a numeric ranking system is dependent on HAVING such a system, which is why possible mechanisms for how such a system might be structured have entered the discussion. If that discussion were to be opened up somewhat then the TTF might be a reasonable venue for discussions of alternative systems such as you brought up. In which case sending it along as "feedback" on the discussion pieces might accomplish your goal (of having the proposal discussed). Note that the extended deadline for such feedback is tomorrow. The TTF will be discussing the feedback generated in the near future.

There isn't really a standing committee that deals directly with the classification system, at least as I understand what each covers. The closest is the Tournament Committee (distinct from the Tournament Task Force and with only slightly overlapping membership).

The chair of both the TC and the TTF is Kalle Weeks. If she's not the appropriate person to send such suggestions to she undoubtedly is willing to either pass them along to the correct person or to redirect you in a better direction.

-B

[Peach]

(snip)
The chair of both the TC and the TTF is Kalle Weeks. If she's not the appropriate person to send such suggestions to she undoubtedly is willing to either pass them along to the correct person or to redirect you in a better direction.
-B

Is she now Kalle Gerritz? That seems to be how she signs her name these days.

[oiuyt]

Is she now Kalle Gerritz? That seems to be how she signs her name these days.

Details, details.

You are, of course, correct.

-B

[misha]

I don't know how it's currently done, but when I played tournament chess (up until ~12 years ago) the USCF sent out a book with each member's rating quarterly to tournament organizers.

1)
How many chess tournaments per quarter you played?
How many fencing tournaments are you fencing per quarter?

my guess that fencers do a lot more tournaments than chess players

so ratings are changing more frequently

2) "tournament organizers"... in our case may be any club
that's a lot of books to send


.

[telkanuru]

If only there were some sort of interconnected network of machines capable of transmitting and accessing vast quantities of data almost anywhere in the world that could be utilized. Some sort of international web, or network. That would be perfect!

[misha]

If only there were some sort of interconnected network of machines capable of transmitting and accessing vast quantities of data almost anywhere in the world that could be utilized. Some sort of international web, or network. That would be perfect!

Oh, I agree. What a bright idea!

Unfortunately those machines cost arm and a leg
and this hypothetical web will not be reachable from every club
in the near future....


.

[oiuyt]

1)
How many chess tournaments per quarter you played?
How many fencing tournaments are you fencing per quarter?

my guess that fencers do a lot more tournaments than chess players

so ratings are changing more frequently

2) "tournament organizers"... in our case may be any club
that's a lot of books to send

I don't remember how often I competed back when I did. Certainly it's easily possible to do so without significant travel nearly every weekend. And that's not even including the fact that tons of clubs run "club tournaments" (generally open to anyone in the USCF) on one or more designated nights every week.

There have to be many more tournament organizers in chess than there are in fencing.

And, of course, the "book" need not be sent physically any more. When I stopped playing tournament chess (1994) electronic transmission of mass quantities of data was significantly harder than it is now.

Unfortunately those machines cost arm and a leg
and this hypothetical web will not be reachable from every club
in the near future....

Those machines do NOT cost and arm and a leg. Less than the take-home profit of most tournaments (granted the easily portable versions cost a bit more, but even the ones not designed for easy transportation can easily be carried in to a venue for a day if necessary). Download the "book" the night before the event. Voila, no connection needed at the venue. Most tournaments of anything above small size now use computers for tournament operations anyway. Once you have the computer already at the tournament the only other step required is getting recent data onto it, either because it directly connects to the internet at some point or via something like a USB jump drive using another computer which does.

These are all fairly easily worked out issues. I'm sure there are others that we won't even consider until after the system is in place and we find the hidden traps. So we deal with them as we find them.

-B

[JMcC]

Those machines do NOT cost and arm and a leg.

I think Misha and telkanuru were being sarcastic in their most recent posts, i.e. "Wouldn't it be great if there were a thing called the Internet and common people had inexpensive personal computers that could all connect and transfer information back and forth? If only such fantasies really existed."

[mrbiggs]

I have an idea.

How about, rather than a fine rating system that needlessly distinguishes between the 1500th best men's epeeist and the 1501st best, we have a system that breaks fencers down into chunks.

Let's say we've got 6 chunks. So long as fencers are fairly evenly distributed, this much differentiation will be enough for most tournaments, as there are rarely more than 7 in a pool. Some small discrepancies are irrelevant in the common system of pools-DEs.

Now, rather than a complicated system wherein a computer calculates who everyone beat by how much, and magically spits out a rating at the end, the strength of the event could easily be calculated using the number of people in each chunk, and then people could change chunks accordingly. Such calculations could be done with a simple, widely availible table. And, of course, if someone stays in a chunk too long without reaffirming their skill, they'd have to drop down a chunk.

This method would be simple and effective for organizers and fencers, would be easily double checked, and would not necessitate an online database that will probably never come.

So I think that rather than getting precise ratings, we should switch to the chunk method. Oh, wait...

[KD5MDK]

Then you get to an event where the top 100 people are in one chunk, the 101-180 are in the second chunk, and the 181-220 are in the third...