Fencing ratings

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

What's a strong E? Who cares?

Well, according to EDew, who has seen me fence, I would be a competent D if I would have competed in USFA events. So I might be the one!


Happy New Year!

Peter Gustafsson

[KD5MDK]

I doubt you have an E, even if you are at D level.

My point is that the E classification is "better than nothing", and shouldn't be considered as some sort of exclusive station that should be jealously guarded lest the wrong people get in. I have an E in epee, and I had to beat a reasonable number of people to earn it. But it's not some big deal.

[Chuck]

While I'm at it, when is the last time you saw an unrated fencer place eleventh or twelfth in an A2 tournament to get an E? Even including that as a possibility is a joke.

Here is a tournament where the same unrated fencer went from a U to an E and a U to a B in the two epee events in which he competed:

http://askfred.net/Results/results.p...rnament_id=592

In the Senior Mixed Open Epee, with 51 competitors, an A2 event, he finished 12th and earned his E.

Now the rest of the story: The bout committee decided, JUST BEFORE THE EVENT STARTED, to change the format in the Senior Mixed Open Epee to what they called the "Canadian Format" (I think that is correct). When the DE's reached the top 16, then the 16 fencers left were divided into 2 pools of 8. Those pools were fenced and then the top 12 advanced into DE's again, where they advanced with single elimination. While this gave us a lot of fencing, it took an extraordinary long period of time.

In the Junior Mixed Epee, with 15 competitors, an A1 event, he finished tied for 3rd and earned his B (standard pools and DE format). With the recent rule changes on A1 events, this would now be a C rating, rather than a B. Interesting enough, this fencer has not been able to renew his B since that time but would have renewed a C rating since then. The change in earning classifications in A1 events (at least based on this one fencer) seems to be a good change.

Interestingly, this tournament also had an unrated foil fencer go from a U to a C in a B2 Mixed Open Foil event.

[gillaspy]

I fenced (poorly) in an epee tournament of over 52 entrants last weekend. Of those, three got ratings or rating changes. There is something basicly unfair about that. See previous comments on chess tournaments where all participants have ratings changes, good or bad-- and so have something to show for their effort.

[DangerMouse]

I fenced (poorly) in an epee tournament of over 52 entrants last weekend. Of those, three got ratings or rating changes. There is something basicly unfair about that. See previous comments on chess tournaments where all participants have ratings changes, good or bad-- and so have something to show for their effort.

Don't you have an improvement in skill, or at least an educational opportunity to show for your effort? Personally, I don't even go to tournaments where I'm likely to re-earn my rating anymore because there isn't enough challenge to warrant the driving time.

[gillaspy]

Don't you have an improvement in skill, or at least an educational opportunity to show for your effort? Personally, I don't even go to tournaments where I'm likely to re-earn my rating anymore because there isn't enough challenge to warrant the driving time.

Tiger Woods should stop playing golf.

[Hobbes]

Tiger Woods should stop playing golf.

yeah but tiger doesn't need to worry about driving time... I believe he has enough money to pay people to just carry him to all of his tournaments.

[oiuyt]

yeah but tiger doesn't need to worry about driving time... I believe he has enough money to pay people to just carry him to all of his tournaments.

He probably practices driving (and chipping and putting and ...) nearly every day.

-B

[mrbiggs]

I fenced (poorly) in an epee tournament of over 52 entrants last weekend. Of those, three got ratings or rating changes. There is something basicly unfair about that.

Really?

I don't see why it MUST be that more than 1/17 of the fencers there fenced significantly above the ability level their rating indicated.

Now, I haven't seen the tournament and it's quite possible that some did. But there's a lot more information to it than just the number of fencers.

Also, keep in mind that ratings are high water marks and really shouldn't change that often. Every time a fencer gets a new rating, rating inflation gets a little bit worse.

[tchwojko]

Tiger Woods should stop playing golf.

Tiger Woods carefully chooses which tournaments and courses are worth his time.

[Hauptman]

I fenced (poorly) in an epee tournament of over 52 entrants last weekend. Of those, three got ratings or rating changes. There is something basicly unfair about that. See previous comments on chess tournaments where all participants have ratings changes, good or bad-- and so have something to show for their effort.

"Fair" is thoroughly imprecise term, and debating it is a waste of time.

But on another point you raise, change in status is a powerful motivator. If people could see measurable results every tournament, whether positive or negative, they would be much more likely to compete and find it a worthwhile experience.

The reseach on this subject in psychology goes back almost 100 years. They found that even randomly changing conditions in a factory seemed to promote productivity. For instance, if they increased the lighting productivity went up, but if they lowered the lighting productivity also went up. It was merely the perceived change that made the difference.

Applying this to the topic at hand, more tangible results from competing would increase feelings of involvement and perceived results. It might increase participation. Any thoughts?

[Chris]

"Fair" is thoroughly imprecise term, and debating it is a waste of time.

But on another point you raise, change in status is a powerful motivator...

The reseach on this subject in psychology goes back almost 100 years. They found that even randomly changing conditions in a factory seemed to promote productivity. For instance, if they increased the lighting productivity went up, but if they lowered the lighting productivity also went up. It was merely the perceived change that made the difference.

Applying this to the topic at hand, more tangible results from competing would increase feelings of involvement and perceived results. It might increase participation. Any thoughts?

This is known as the Hawthorne effect (IIRC, named for the location the experiment was conducted). The statement that randomly changing conditions improved productivity in this experiment was, and is incorrect: What changed was the perception of the people working: The experiment was to be be a trial and comparison of flourescent lighting versus whatever it was they were using; there was some commotion involved in installing the new lighting, and people knew something was going on, and more importantly, that they were going to be watched more closely (to some higher degree, at least) than they had before. It was this awareness of observation that affected the behavior, and the immediate concern that their performance could affect their status (i.e.- being fired), that motivated the behavior change - not random at all.

Of course this still supports the concept that people might participate in tournaments more, if it would be perceived as being more likely to improve their (perceived status), or to maintain it.

[gillaspy]

Another way of looking at our rating system is as a "leaky pump." Tournaments pump one way, making E's of U's, D's of E's, C's of D's, B's of C's, and A's of B's, and along the way leak a lot of fencers who stop fencing in tournaments (even if they continue fencing) because they can't see any results. "Rating inflation" is completely predictable in a system that only goes one way.

And don't tell me that dropping to a lower rating after four years proves the pump goes both ways.

[mrbiggs]

This thread has run its course.

What's that, Pa?

It's done. It had a nice life, but that's over.

Don't tell me...

Keeping it alive anymore is just cruel. I'm gonna have to take it out back.

Pa, no!

Sorry, son, it's the only way. It'll be real quick for ol' Fencing ratings, and then we'll get a new thread, a better one.

I don't want a new thread, I want this one!

You're just hurting it, son. Now, let me take it out back and it will all be over soon.

Exunt

*bang*

[gillaspy]

For extending this thread for a little longer. And no, I don't think it has run it course until there is some official response from the powers that be. In the meantime, exposing the issue to those who might not have seen it before could hardly hurt. It's not as if I'm taking up space in your parlor, or that this issue doesn't matter.

[KD5MDK]

What official response? Discussion of the ratings system occurs at every Board meeting in one form or another. What's missing is fully developed practical solutions.