Athletes' Handbook Changes for the 2006-2007 Season

[Army Fencer]

I've recently read the Athletes' Handbook, and I found a number of important changes. We already discuss the new format for the NACs. Here are a few other important changes:

1. Only 12 athletes can go to each World Cup tournament. This is an increase for tournaments in Europe and Asia, but it is a major decrease for tournaments in North America. As before, only 8 athletes can go to Grands Prix.

2. Seeding for the NACs has changed to this order, apparently to reduce the emphasis of rating:
a. FIE point, if an individual has made top 32 at two international competitions (minus satellite tournaments)
b. National Points (anyone).
c. Rating and year.

3. It used to be that you got 200 for making the top 64 at a World Cup, if the competition had a strength factor of 2.0. Now, the points are scaled between 284 (for making 33rd) and 160 (for making 64th).

Another big change in the Athletes' Handbook is that the end is broken down to 6 chapters, one per weapon. This makes it easier for athletes and coaches to read specifically about their qualification pathways. Also, the font is now uniform throughout the document, aiding readability.

There are probably more changes, but those were the ones that stuck out to me.

[FencingKitten]

This is a great post! I really apppreciate anyone who calls attention to the Athlete's Handbook, because so many fencers do not recognize its value (although, not as many here on f.net, I don't think) in understanding one's place in a tournament.

Could you clarify what the change is in seeding for the NACs? I may still be too new to the national level to see it, but I thought that was how it was always seeded.

[counterattack]

1. Only 12 athletes can go to each World Cup tournament. This is an increase for tournaments in Europe and Asia, but it is a major decrease for tournaments in North America.

Wow! Last year the U.S. sent 49 men's epee fencers to the Peter Bakonyi event. If the U.S. cut down to 12 that would knock the event down in size by 25%. And of course it would mean that those not in the top-20 in the country would have no chance of going to any World Cup events.

Canada sent 37, which is proportionally a much larger percentage of their fencing population. I am guessing the Canada isn't also going to cut down or else the event would be really small.

I just went and looked at some other "local" fencer populations at world cups and saw that, for example, Portugal sent 25 fencers to the WC in Portugal.

Anyway, my point is that it would be sad if we really are going to throttle back our entries to our local WC events. That experience will pretty much be limited to same crew who can already go to international WCs if they want to.

[misha]

Quota for organising country is different (20, but I may be wrong)
plus they can place fencers "necessary to fill poules of 7"


.

[Craig]

Thanks Army - I'm pinning this one up for a while.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Wow! Last year the U.S. sent 49 men's epee fencers to the Peter Bakonyi event. If the U.S. cut down to 12 that would knock the event down in size by 25%. And of course it would mean that those not in the top-20 in the country would have no chance of going to any World Cup events.

Canada sent 37, which is proportionally a much larger percentage of their fencing population. I am guessing the Canada isn't also going to cut down or else the event would be really small.

I just went and looked at some other "local" fencer populations at world cups and saw that, for example, Portugal sent 25 fencers to the WC in Portugal.

Anyway, my point is that it would be sad if we really are going to throttle back our entries to our local WC events. That experience will pretty much be limited to same crew who can already go to international WCs if they want to.

Well that's unfortunate... I was hoping to go up to Montreal to fence in that event, now that it is coming back to Montreal...

Some of my friends had similar thoughts... I imagine had they not made the change, the 49 that the US sent last year was quite likely to increase... so they probably had to put the lid on it. It is too bad... but understandable.

-w

[Army Fencer]

Wow! Last year the U.S. sent 49 men's epee fencers to the Peter Bakonyi event. If the U.S. cut down to 12 that would knock the event down in size by 25%. And of course it would mean that those not in the top-20 in the country would have no chance of going to any World Cup events.

Canada sent 37, which is proportionally a much larger percentage of their fencing population. I am guessing the Canada isn't also going to cut down or else the event would be really small.

I just went and looked at some other "local" fencer populations at world cups and saw that, for example, Portugal sent 25 fencers to the WC in Portugal.

Anyway, my point is that it would be sad if we really are going to throttle back our entries to our local WC events. That experience will pretty much be limited to same crew who can already go to international WCs if they want to.

To be clear, this was an FIE decision, not the USFA's.

Also, I expect the tournament in Montreal to be quite large, because it is one of the first tournaments in the Olympic marathon.

[counterattack]

To be clear, this was an FIE decision, not the USFA's.

Also, I expect the tournament in Montreal to be quite large, because it is one of the first tournaments in the Olympic marathon.

Ah, well, that sucks but at least it won't be just the U.S. losing that opportunity.

[Army Fencer]

Could you clarify what the change is in seeding for the NACs? I may still be too new to the national level to see it, but I thought that was how it was always seeded.

The seeding for the 2005-2006 season wasn't that different, now that I look at it again. Last season it was:

a. Minimum of 10 points from FIE tournaments, with at least two results with four points or more (64 at a Grand Prix, 32 at a Sr. A World Cup).
b. National points (all).
c. Rating and year.

For whatever reason, I had thought that they only went down to a certain number on the national points. At national championships, they seed first based on the top 32 on the points list, but this is not a change from the previous season.

[Bayou Bum]

What are the official rules regarding teams for Summer Nationals? The Athlete Handbook still list the team events as Senior, Div I, and Junior. I thought the September BOD meeting reduced team events to two events, Junior and either Senior or Div I. Could someone please clarify what team events are going to be held at Summer Nationals in 2007?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Wow! Last year the U.S. sent 49 men's epee fencers to the Peter Bakonyi event. If the U.S. cut down to 12 that would knock the event down in size by 25%. And of course it would mean that those not in the top-20 in the country would have no chance of going to any World Cup events.

Canada sent 37, which is proportionally a much larger percentage of their fencing population. I am guessing the Canada isn't also going to cut down or else the event would be really small.

I just went and looked at some other "local" fencer populations at world cups and saw that, for example, Portugal sent 25 fencers to the WC in Portugal.

Anyway, my point is that it would be sad if we really are going to throttle back our entries to our local WC events. That experience will pretty much be limited to same crew who can already go to international WCs if they want to.

It would be nice if they had a raffle or something for WC eligibility for those not in the top 16.

[KD5MDK]

How about you make the top 16 instead?

I believe the Athlete's Handbook was drawn up before the team decision was made, so the more recent decision will apply.

[downunder]

It would be nice if they had a raffle or something for WC eligibility for those not in the top 16.

What makes you think that you deserve to go to a world cup if you can't get to even the top 16 in your country?

[bigdawg2121]

I don't think hw was saying that he deserves to go to the WC so much as he would like to. Frankly they're excellent tournaments for experience and training, especially if you're on the cusp of being able to go. I think the idea is that when you have extra spaces in your allotment you should try to spread them to those that wouldn't usually have access to them.

[tehcow]

What makes you think that you deserve to go to a world cup if you can't get to even the top 16 in your country?

This comment is kinda funny because I'm sure you are very aware of the standards we have in terms of entering people in home World Cups.

[downunder]

This comment is kinda funny because I'm sure you are very aware of the standards we have in terms of entering people in home World Cups.

Oh i'm fully aware of my situation. (Scraped together the minimal points to go to junior world cups, fluked a result which got me the points to qualify for worlds).

I don't think hw was saying that he deserves to go to the WC so much as he would like to. Frankly they're excellent tournaments for experience and training, especially if you're on the cusp of being able to go. I think the idea is that when you have extra spaces in your allotment you should try to spread them to those that wouldn't usually have access to them.

There is little experiance going to one of these competitions and fencing 5 or 6 fights then going home without a d.e.

[bigdawg2121]

I'd have to say that I disagree. If you do it right you can learn a ton even if you get eliminated in the first rounds.

[eac]

It is also useful just as an excuse to attend, so you can watch the real people in person.

[rac]

It is also useful just as an excuse to attend, so you can watch the real people in person.

I agree, if nothing else seeing the competition and scoping out the way it is administered can go a long way to quelling future apprehensions about attending. Seeing the real deal tends to help bring those sky high aspirations more down to earth to a reachable/achievable goal for folks coming up.

rac

[tehcow]

Oh i'm fully aware of my situation. (Scraped together the minimal points to go to junior world cups, fluked a result which got me the points to qualify for worlds).

Well I wasn't really referring to your situation because I don't know who you are, but I was thinking more of Challenge Australia, where the qualifying standard (in particular this year, but I'm sure this isn't the only time it has been the case) has been whoever sends in the form. I'm certainly not complaining but I just think it's pretty funny.