Woo-hoo! I just renewed my Q07! ... Watch out, P, here I come!

[Sciurus-Rex]

Some have said that the current fencer rating system -- a letter with year suffix, ala "A07" -- is sufficient for seeding purposes. That's fine; let's not argue that point in this thread, when it's been done to death elsewhere. But is that the only value of the code, or is there a greater emotional investment in what it represents?

Consider an alternative: Rather than using the letters A-E, shift everything down the alphabet so that the top rating is a P and the series runs through T. So, for example, the top fencer at a large NAC this year would earn the designation of P07, while a newbie breaking ranks for the first time last year would have a T06. ... Everything else about the system remains the same.

Would you still be as satisfied with your rating? Would the declaration that you're a Q working toward your P have as much prestige as a B within reach of an A?

It's my gut feeling that ONE of the elements hidden deep in the conflict over changing to an Elo system might be the reluctance to give up those important letter designations, which we hold in regard similar to an Eastern martial arts belt-color system. I might be wrong. The question above is intended to explore that possibility. What do you think? ... And if that is the case, at least to some degree, can we develop a better system to address that issue alone?

[keith]

It's my gut feeling that ONE of the elements hidden deep in the conflict over changing to an Elo system might be the reluctance to give up those important letter designations, which we hold in regard similar to an Eastern martial arts belt-color system. I might be wrong. The question above is intended to explore that possibility. What do you think? ... And if that is the case, at least to some degree, can we develop a better system to address that issue alone?

Well yes - or rather depending on were you fence the answer is yes.

I suspect at larger well established clubs with competitive (competition entry) traditions and the coaches to foster that development then it is polite practice to regard letters as mere stepping stone to national points.

At smaller less august establishments letters matter; getting an E, never mind a C, can be a big deal - and while it may fun to sneer at such folks they are the ones whose dues fund the USFA.

Regardless of how one feels about this from a pedagogical standpoint (IMHO it's bad) from a getting and keeping fencers it's good.

[Allen Evans]

You know what would completely destroy that attachement? A number system...yeah....most people don't feel as strong about numbers as they do about letters (probably a product of our school grading system). In fact, it would be a lot easier to manipulate numbers and use them in real calculations! In fact...er...hold on a minute...

Haven't we been here before?

I was very surprised that, in a very rough poll among fencers I know, I found an enourmous number of fencers who care a LOT about their E, D, and C rankings. Much more than I would have thought. It's not the "A" and "B" fencers who seem to be adament about the system (most of them are looking for National points, or at least a good result at an NAC). It's the fencers below that level.

Allen

[edew]

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

[contre-Sixte]

It's my gut feeling that ONE of the elements hidden deep in the conflict over changing to an Elo system might be the reluctance to give up those important letter designations, which we hold in regard similar to an Eastern martial arts belt-color system.

Yes, of course you are right. Saying "I'm a B07", for example, connotes a level of acheivement and a timeframe in which it occurred. "I'm a 1908" doesn't quite achieve the same effect.

But I would also reverse the implication of your question and say that many who push for a elo type system do so for more than the stated claims of better seeding, geographical equity, less flukiness, etc. I think for some fencers, being an A or B (or whatever) is insufficient. They need a number to show that they are somehow superior to that other A or B standing next to them. There's nothing wrong with this motivation, but it never seems to appear prominently in the argument.

[keith]

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Really? Put someone in a blindfold and tell them you are going to push a turd against their nose.

[oiuyt]

But I would also reverse the implication of your question and say that many who push for a elo type system do so for more than the stated claims of better seeding, geographical equity, less flukiness, etc. I think for some fencers, being an A or B (or whatever) is insufficient. They need a number to show that they are somehow superior to that other A or B standing next to them. There's nothing wrong with this motivation, but it never seems to appear prominently in the argument.

I don't really buy this as a primary motivation.

I know that's not a factor in my motivation. I'm an A with national points. I don't need an ELO system (or any other numeric system, whether statistical or non-statistical) to support feelings of superiority (justified or not). As such, it won't appear in any arguments that I write in favor of such systems. If/when I lose all national points (indeed, all of mine are currently set to expire later this month), it still won't be part of my motivation.

I could be an exceptional case (certainly not a rare situation for me to fall far from norms), but I just haven't seen anyone else where I felt this to be part of their rationale, spoken or unspoken.

-B

[Sciurus-Rex]

I don't really buy this as a primary motivation. ...

I could be an exceptional case (certainly not a rare situation for me to fall far from norms), but I just haven't seen anyone else where I felt this to be part of their rationale, spoken or unspoken.

You are certainly an exceptional case in many ways. But that's beside the point.

Primary motivation? I agree, probably not. ... Still, if it's been an unspoken element, it would remain so until raised for discussion in a forum like this.

I was very surprised that, in a very rough poll among fencers I know, I found an enourmous number of fencers who care a LOT about their E, D, and C rankings. Much more than I would have thought. It's not the "A" and "B" fencers who seem to be adament about the system (most of them are looking for National points, or at least a good result at an NAC). It's the fencers below that level.

I know it was a huge deal for me to get my D and C. It proved I was good enough to have a letter grade, dammit!

Any rating system carries only as much cachet as we ascribe to it or it garners over time. Would it feel as prestigous to be a 5,000-level fencer instead of an A? Probably not ... at least not immediately. I think that after an adjustment period, though, it would take on just as much value as, say, a "black belt," or "gold blade," or "omega-prime" designation.

Is it even possible in our sport to disengage an experience/ability identifier from a competition rating? Or must a person become competitive to get some form of rank?

[keith]

Any rating system carries only as much cachet as we ascribe to it or it garners over time. Would it feel as prestigous to be a 5,000-level fencer instead of an A? Probably not ... at least not immediately. I think that after an adjustment period, though, it would take on just as much value as, say, a "black belt," or "gold blade," or "omega-prime" designation.

So why stir the pot? The people who would, in many ways*, be most affected by the removal of the letter systems have nothing to gain from the change.

*not just the dire psychic dislocation but also the issue that over the first few years the equivalent of E/D and under competitions will be a strange lottery.

[Sciurus-Rex]

The people who would, in many ways, be most affected by the removal of the letter systems have nothing to gain from the change.

I would disagree with that point ... in another thread.
Here, I'm interested in the unspoken assumptions and emotional investments in the letter itself.

[keith]

Here, I'm interested in the unspoken assumptions and emotional investments in the letter itself.

...but it isn't an unspoken assumption. We all know the following statement is true;

For a group of fencers the transition from letter ? to letter ? is a substantial motivator and marker of achievement.

That they are A,B,C etc matters only in so far as those are the designators used. Could any other designators have been chosen? Why of course in much the same way that we could award lead, pewter, and tin medals to the folk who finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd - but we don't.

It is not as simple as just changing and saying new ratings same as the old ratings - just ask Cornell .

[FoilyDeath]

I think your over complicating things. The advantage of an ELO system is that it gives a ranking. Hence, you know when your the best.

[mrbiggs]

Yes, of course you are right. Saying "I'm a B07", for example, connotes a level of acheivement and a timeframe in which it occurred. "I'm a 1908" doesn't quite achieve the same effect.

Yes it does. Especially to those who are familiar with the system, which is much greater than the number of people familiar with the fencing system.


Sciurus-Rex, where are you getting this from? It's an absurd and useless suggestion.

[keith]

I think your over complicating things. The advantage of an ELO system is that it gives a ranking. Hence, you know when your the best.

not getting a clear reading on my sarcasm detector hmmm

[keith]

Especially to those who are familiar with the system, which is much greater than the number of people familiar with the fencing system.

Ah hah - I have found a subtle flaw in the plan. Can you guess?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Sciurus-Rex, where are you getting this from? It's an absurd and useless suggestion.

"Getting this from?" Reread the intro message in this thread -- I posed it for the sake of discussion.

For a group of fencers the transition from letter ? to letter ? is a substantial motivator and marker of achievement.

That they are A,B,C etc matters only in so far as those are the designators used. ...

Again, I'm trying to keep this thread as drift-free as possible. But if you're going to push it, we could take a look at granularity of accomplishment markers at the lower levels -- an "E" fencer finishing 37th in one event and 35th in another event hasn't gotten any useful feedback for whether he's improved even a smidgeon.

Is an E valuable as an identifier of accomplishment for the individual? Yes. Could it be more useful? Yes. How much more useful?

[keith]

Is an E valuable as an identifier of accomplishment for the individual? Yes. Could it be more useful? Yes. How much more useful?

Ah but here is the problem; from a pedagogical point of view an E (or a 120) is not a useful marker. They do not become less bad (or even more good) by increasing granularity.

Ratings are the socially acceptable drug of fencing, fun but bad for you . So keeping them under some sort of control is a good idea.

[tbryan]

is there a greater emotional investment in what it represents?...Would you still be as satisfied with your rating? Would the declaration that you're a Q working toward your P have as much prestige as a B within reach of an A? It's my gut feeling that ONE of the elements hidden deep in the conflict over changing to an Elo system might be the reluctance to give up those important letter designations,

I disagree.

I think that the attachment to those letter rankings are that they are thresholds that we cross as fencers. Ratings do age if they are not renewed, but a fencer's rating doesn't generally change after every tournament. In that sense, earning a rating is significant. Think of a brand new fencer. He goes to tournament after tournament. Maybe for a year or two. Then he finally earns his ___fill in the blank___. It doesn't really matter if that's an E, a T, a gold star, etc. He has passed from one set of people (unrated) to another (rated). Unless he quits fencing, most rated fencers manage to at least renew that initial rating within the current decay time limit.

The attachment to and significance of the "letters" in the current system is that they are discrete and that fencers don't move between one and another very often. That makes them stand out as obvious milestones. It's also easy to connect the rating change to a tournament result. Even if there is a delay in getting a card, a fencer knows that placing 2nd at tournament X is how he earned his D.

I haven't looked at Elo yet. One thing that I actually like about it is that it takes away some of these obvious thresholds in ratings. A fencer can feel proud about finally crossing the 1000 mark, I suppose, but it's probably going to be hard to tie to specific tournament result. If there's a month rolling window (see the other thread), where the USFA collects and then recomputes ratings, the fencer will have a harder time connecting the performance at a particular tournament to a threshold in the rating system. I think that attitude could really help a lot of fencers. They can now remember particularly good or bad tournaments as a tournament experience, disconnected from their rating. The rating doesn't matter so much since it's constantly fluctuating, but (hopefully) it represents a good approximation of the fencer's recent results and how the fencer is progressing in skill over time (up or down).

[Sciurus-Rex]

(F)rom a pedagogical point of view an E (or a 120) is not a useful marker. They do not become less bad (or even more good) by increasing granularity.

Ratings are the socially acceptable drug of fencing, fun but bad for you.

For a group of fencers the transition from letter ? to letter ? is a substantial motivator and marker of achievement.

You confuse me with your fancy footwork and point control, sir. How are we to reconcile "substantial motivator and marker of achievement" with "fun but bad for you?"

[academe]

You know what would completely destroy that attachement? A number system...yeah....most people don't feel as strong about numbers as they do about letters (probably a product of our school grading system). In fact, it would be a lot easier to manipulate numbers and use them in real calculations! In fact...er...hold on a minute...

People still get excited about a number system. In cycling there is a category system. When I was racing it was category 1 (Pro), 2, 3, 4. To move up a category you had to get so many wins or top ten finishes. I can't remember the exact number. Races could be open to all categories or be a category 4, 3-4, or any combination. In category 3 and 4 races the bike handling was downright dangerous. So the motivation to improve (to category 2 the best you could do and remain an amateur) had a lot to do with getting into a category race where you could expect people to have enough time on the bike to avoid stupid crashes and know what to do if they attacked or made it into a break.

A few years after I retired, they added a category 5 (which I think is where it is at now). Needed a little more granularity I guess. Probably a lot of folks carping about how easy it was to move up to category 2 in Arizona as compared to New York.