strong fencers ... under a proposed ELO style system, there is a great disincentive.
Assumption not true for all top fencers. Those who are strong *enough* have nothing to worry about. You're suggesting that the (alleged) concerns of some are shared by all at the same level.
__________________ "Why do you say this to me, when you know I will kill you for it?" - Zod
Of course, the countervailing argument under an Elo or other non high- watermark system, is that strong fencers may have more of an incentive to go to smaller tournaments if there is a chance of improving their rating, which there wouldn't be under the old system.
An A06 has no particular (ratings) incentive to attend any local tournament. Similarly, where the tournament (either through lack of 15 participants or lack of of enough of the right classification fencers) is unlikely to give a higher classification to a potential competitor, there is likewise no ratings incentive to participate.
Good point.
If the A-rated Top Dawg can safely assume he'll blow away his newbie competitors, that puny little hometown event might look at little more enticing if only because he can gain a point or two to his national rating. Without even a teensy chance of a new letter grade (as it is now), he might as well stay home.
And no one has really said much about the incentives at the other end of the scale. As it is now, a mid- to low-level fencer faces huge disincentives to attend most events -- gas prices, time investment, etc. -- when compared with the likelihood of winning a new letter grade. They've got almost no quantitative feedback to look forward to. That number rating is a big motivator to their future efforts and performance.
__________________ "Why do you say this to me, when you know I will kill you for it?" - Zod
Bravo! Now we're getting into the meat of the actual advantages.
The reality of the situation is that we're panicking about the complaints of those who are at the margins...i.e. those who barely don't qualify for a tournament. How do you think it feels to come in 33rd at a NAC? Or one off qualifying for Nationals?
The great advantage of a numeric system is that it allows you to spread your performances. Instead of being judged on the merits of one performance, you are judged on your consistency throughout your fencing season(s).
You eliminate the wasteland that is the Stale A and B.
Also, EVERY WIN WILL HELP YOU, EVERY LOSS WILL HURT YOU.
That would be it's greatest benefit of a good system. Now the sum total of of your competition would count. Getting knocked out in the 64 is no longer just as good as getting knocked out in 16. The immediacy of the bouting will breed greater competitiveness and, hopefully, a better strain of competitive fencer.
Good fencers already have a disincentive not to show up, as was stated before. Why fence with no benefit...where all you can lose is pride and all you can win is a medal to help build that life-sized scupture of yourself. You're trading apples for apples....low risk for low reward. After all, if the fencer is really that good, the risk should be minimal for a high-rated fencer to gain the small reward expected. But on the flip side, the benefit to the other fencers is drastically increased...without the extreme of ridiculously lopsided rating changes as seen sometimes in minimum A rated tourney's (how many false B's come out of being on the correct route in these little A-makers? yes, discussed many times...).
Last edited by jaketheranger; 08-17-2006 at 07:48 PM..
From Peet's thread on goals and pitfalls of a rating system, because he didn't want discussions of systems there:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEC
Once again, I think the EASIEST upgrade to the current system is to add a qualifier with the number of times that PEAK performance has been achieved. This could be an intermediate step to eventually go to a numerical ELO-type system.
My proposal for past couple of years (at least) has been to increase the accuracy of the letter rating by adding number of times the letter is renewed (i.e: A06-8 vs A06-1).
For discussion about this proposal, you could examine the following F.Net message threads:
JEC, I skimmed the 3 threads, but wasn't sure about a couple of things.
It seems it transfers from year to year, is this correct? E.g. Someone winning their A in 2003, renewing it twice in 2004 and three more times in 2005 would be an A05-6, correct?
Assuming this is correct, who is ranked first, an A06-1 or an A05-10?
What happens when you age-out? Does an A02-5 (or whatever) become a B06-1? Perhaps with national databases there could be some sort of "shadow rating" that would track the number of times the lower rating was rearned to be used only on ageing out?
The system was intended for the current year. However, you bring a very interesting point. The system could be tied up to the 4-year tier system:
Take the following example:
2006 - 6 A renewals
2005 - 2 A renewals
2004 - 1 A earning
2003 - 0 A ratings
For new (not old) ratings, you could give a weight of 1.0 for current year, 0.5 for the prior year, 0.25 for 2 years prior, and none for 3 years ago other than the rating. Numbers 0.5 and 0.25 could be rounded down, whereas 0.75 is rounded up
This fencer was:
A04-1 in 2004
A04-1 at beginning of 2005
After getting first A05, this fencer is A05-1 (for 2004 A = 0.5, while first 2005 A =1; result 1.5)
A05-2 at end of 2005
A05-2 at beginning of 2005,
After getting first A06, this fencer becomes A06-2 (adding 1.25 to the 1.0 of the just earned A-06),
This fencer would end the season as A06-7. At the beginning of 2007, the fencer remains as A06-7, but after earning first A07 it automatically becomes an A07-4 (6 2006 A's = 3, 2 2005 A's = 0.5, 1 2007 A = 1 result is 4.5 A strength).
This idea increases the differences between fencers particularly at the beginning of the year. However, any letter from the new year would supercede any large number from a prior year. For example, the top of the seedings from a 2007 February tournament might be in this order:
We don't want to spam up our message board with threads repeating info already posted elsewhere, so let's pick one or the other, eh?
But if the conversation is going to continue *here*, then I'd like to supplement JEC's brilliant plan with some additional elements I also put on that other thread:
(Take) this one step further and include the total number of times the competitor attempted to have a peak performance, i.e. the total number of competitions he's attended. This helps put the rating in even clearer perspective (does he just keep plugging away until he wins? is he consistent?).
((Question: "How would you then define the opportunity factor?"))
Dude, EVERY fencing competition is an opportunity for greatness!
But you're right. Sometimes an A can't get his A renewed, and every so often an E will be unable to even hope for a new D. Good point.
We still need to give some perspective of how active the fencer is, however, so I further propose additional clarification: another number to show how many times he could have earned a higher rating. So instead of an A06-8-32, for example, vs. A06-1-2, we could have an A06-8-32/12 vs. A06-1-2/1.
I'm still playing with the possibility of adding a color code to give an indication of the size of the fencer's latest tournament(s).
... Or, we could go directly to a single-number system.
I don't know; it's just an idea.
__________________ "Why do you say this to me, when you know I will kill you for it?" - Zod
Last edited by Sciurus-Rex; 08-18-2006 at 01:01 PM..
Modify the rating system in the ways suggested is the worst of both worlds (more complexity for the nat'l office only). If you want to use the current system and make it better, just have ratings degrade every year or two.
humm, random thought here. How would this reflect on the athlete that has worked their tuckus off for a singular yearly goal, lets say due to the fact they can only afford to attend two USFA events in a year and maybe 3 local... All the while also being involved in philanthropic endeavors, (for our students of all levels) keeping a GPA that helps maintain said education, being able to honor Family events (those folks have big time braggin rights and some times funds), or - God forbid actually build a relationship with a .. person of interest.... here is another one... why are not all finishes listed as 16/175 at the time of the event --its not like they dont know... and it certianly is a higher climb than say a 32 out of 47... yet top 32 is top 32.... hummm ok back to my ever present copy machine
__________________
""Challenge is a dragon with a gift in its mouth... Tame the dragon and the gift is yours."- Noela Evans
We still need to give some perspective of how active the fencer is, however, so I further propose additional clarification: another number to show how many times he could have earned a higher rating. So instead of an A06-8-32, for example, vs. A06-1-2, we could have an [/i]A06-8-32/12 vs. A06-1-2/1.[i]
So a fencer who goes to the Mercury Cup and gets second, losing to one of the top 10 fencers in the country, has his rating go down?
While a fencer who goes to a weak A1 with fencers he mostly knows anyway has it go up?
Much as allowing repechage after a certain level doesn't disadvantage everyone else...
-m
Sigh...
Yes, it does. "Lesser" fencers are disadvantaged by not having as much fencing/a "second chance" at winning despite paying the same membership and entry fees as the elite. Point standings, however, are not a real benefit. They add nothing to the elites that is of value, apart from letting them be seeded in World Cups. Which other fencers cannot do in any event.
Have you actually READ the thread on that topic? Or are you just using selective information to play an onanistic game of "gotcha"?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
You're not cynical enough. I'm part of both the group tasked with making suggestions for changes and the group that has official responsibility for deciding what changes to make and whether or not to make them.
That doesn't mean I'm part of the shadow group(s) that ACTUALLY runs the USFA. It's this secret cabal ensconced in their mountain-top lair in Colordao (aka SPECTRE headquarters) that's already made the decision.
-B
You jest, but you are probably not far from the truth. The Iron Law of Oligarchy makes just this sort of thing all but inevitable.
Whaterver your role, you are not more highly placed than Mr. Massik, who by seak's report has said that the decision HAS been made. How do you explain this? Is Seak a liar? Was Massik "kidding"? Or is he just talking to hear himself talk because does he just does not have the power to make such decisions in the organization without the assent of your "tasked groups"?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
It would be interesting to see what the vote would look like across the membership...
Interesting, yes, but fairly meaningless. Decisions depend no on what the membership thinks about any given issue but rather upon what a few leaders, coaches and elite fencers think. If a poll of the membership came in with 90% supporting a point system and the BoD opposed it, which position do you think would prevail?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
who by seak's report has said that the decision HAS been made. How do you explain this? Is Seak a liar? Was Massik "kidding"? Or is he just talking to hear himself talk because does he just does not have the power to make such decisions in the organization without the assent of your "tasked groups"?
Is it not possible that things just got a little lost in translation?
Point standings, however, are not a real benefit. They add nothing to the elites that is of value, apart from letting them be seeded in World Cups. Which other fencers cannot do in any event.
not true. being on the point standings allows that fencer to be seeded ahead of all the lesser fencers with the same rating at domestic events, like NACs. This is clearly a direct benefit for those elite over the others. It is a very parallel situation to that you were arguing in the other thread, but you, as usual, are being inconsistent with your arguments to fit them to your predetermined viewpoints.
being on the point standings allows that fencer to be seeded ahead of all the lesser fencers with the same rating at domestic events, like NACs. This is clearly a direct benefit for those elite over the others.
Why? If they really are better than the "lesser" fencers, they're going to beat them in any case. It doesn't matter if they're seeded 1st on points or 5th as a random A06. Either way they're going to be top seed in their pool, they'll come out with good indicators and probably rise in the seeding for DEs. Where is this clear benefit? I just don't see it.
Well, maybe in epee, where everyone and his brother has an A or B as long as they have a pulse, and winning is as much luck as skill. But again, why inflict change and costs on everyone just for the sake of the epeeists?
Quote:
It is a very parallel situation to that you were arguing in the other thread, but you, as usual, are being inconsistent with your arguments to fit them to your predetermined viewpoints.
-m
You can keep saying that until you're as blue as Zilverzmurfen, but I've already pointed out the differences. But keep on worrying that rat, terrier.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
You mean the ridiculous extreme to which I took the proposal doesn't absolutely reeeeek of facetiousness?
Linear Mode
