Elo poll - read post before voting

[eac]

I get the vibe from the ratings thread that a bunch of non-Inq people are interested in some kind of Elo system replacing the current letter system for seeding and ranking of non-team-contenders. I'm therefore polling to check how many people actually feel this way, and how much of it is me wishfully thinking. Now, this poll may not work, because the poll interface is non-obvious.

THING BEING VOTED ON:
Would you support replacing the current letter system with SOME kind of Elo-derived system, assuming you could specify the details of said system?

I'm asking it this way because I don't want to drive pro-Elo people away by tying them down to a particular proposal, the particulars of which they don't like. Instead, I want to gauge the proportion of people who are generally in favor of the idea in theory.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by eac

Would you support replacing the current letter system with SOME kind of Elo-derived system, assuming you could specify the details of said system?

If *I* could specify the details? ... Dear gawd, NO! I couldn't trust myself to come up with a decent system on my own.

[eac]

Well, if you could pick your favorite smart person to determine the details, then. The main question is, do you think there *exists* an Elo system that you would prefer to the current letter system?

[notalent]

I can't justify the all of the added work for a problem that only affects the top 5 % of fencers atmost.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by notalent

I can't justify the all of the added work for a problem that only affects the top 5 % of fencers atmost.

The latter part of your comment is baseless. The system change would affect everyone, albeit in slightly different ways depending on your skill level and needs. Or haven't you been reading the other threads?

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by notalent

I can't justify the all of the added work for a problem that only affects the top 5 % of fencers atmost.

You are totally wrong.

I'm glad you're in an area where you don't see obviously overrated divisions, where one or two people barely manage to earn a rating and just end up trading it around with other members of their division, making what would be a C1, a B1. Their Us become Es, Es become Ds, and Ds become Cs. Eventually it works its way all the way up to A. In that area, there is misseeding on every level compared to the national standard of how good a U, E, D, C, B, or A fencer is. I think that affects more than the top 5%.

Also, the bottom level of fencers are who benefit from this almost as much as the top. Two Us show up at a competition, and one has fenced for six months, and hardly even knows which end of the foil to hold, and one has fenced for a year and a half, gone to Div III summer nats, and missed his E there. The latter U would destroy the former, so it's not fair to seed them as though they are the same thing. One could be a 125, and one could be a 175.

Also, another way it helps lower rated fencers. A U no longer has to look for a 15 man E and under competition for the chance to get a rating. There's none of that "Well, you did well, but you have to do well at the rght tournament" crap. He could show up to a 120 person competition with 40 As and still help his rating by placing 90th without needing to beat a single A.

I think anyone who opposes the Elo opposes it out of fear of the unknown (or of math), because they've never seen one applied, and the level of accuracy (and simplicity) that can be achieved. I, too, am not terribly good at math, but I am good enough to figure out my 5.5% sales tax with a pad of paper if I have to. The math for an Elo is no harder.

[FoilyDeath]

http://felo.sourceforge.net/felo/
Though it was time to post this up again...

[Army Fencer]

I'm not a fan of ELO, but I don't like the current rank system either.

I would much prefer a points system, in which certain tournaments earned you certain points, akin to the current WC circuit.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

I'm not a fan of ELO, but I don't like the current rank system either.

I would much prefer a points system, in which certain tournaments earned you certain points, akin to the current WC circuit.

Also in the current USFA discussions, although it hasn't been addressed here much (at all?).

-B

[Durando]

I've mentioned it before, but the FFE tracks points for all tournaments, weighting them according to level or some other dark math which I don't care about. You're only as good as last year's overall performance. Pretty satisfying in terms of seeding. Wish I could say more about how this is actually achieved but it might be worth investigating. If you're interested, I know the guy with all the answers and will even share the address. PM me.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

You are totally wrong.

I'm glad you're in an area where you don't see obviously overrated divisions

Sigh, so much for reasonable informed debate. I live in the LA area we know ratings inflation here much as most areas who have any large number of events do. I don't fear an elo system, I simply don't feel it is needed for most fencers. We don't yet have a problem in WS,MS,MF,WE,WF nor is there a sign that we are going to have on anytime soon. Many lower level fencers like the letter system because of the earning a rating feeling. So what we are fixing is the top part of the D1 ME. There are many potential issues with setting up a system and then implimenting it. There is the fact that the starting data is based on the old system, so it will take sometime for it to wash out the info. Women will be less inclined to fence mixed events as this is more likely to negatively affect their ratings. I can keep listing them when I get home, the Treo has a limited size post.

[contre-Sixte]

Originally Posted by eac

Would you support replacing the current letter system with SOME kind of Elo-derived system, assuming you could specify the details of said system?

Well, I'm not a Elo booster, but I wouldn't mind it too much if it had the following attributes:

1) Elo ratings go up & down all the time, but the rating used for eligibility should be predictable... maybe changing semi-anually or quarterly.

2) Elo ratings should not age-out too quickly. People should not be punished for having a life outside fencing (spoken by a Vet with kids).

3) Elo ratings should be slightly asymmetric... ratings should go up faster than they go down. I've never seen a A fencer leave the sport because there were too many other A fencers, but I have seen E's and U's leave out of frustration.

4) There should be a maximum risk - less than that prescribed by Maslin -(and a minimum benefit) for attending a local tournament. Otherwise local tournaments will become wretched due to lack of participation by elite fencers.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by notalent

Sigh, so much for reasonable informed debate. I live in the LA area we know ratings inflation here much as most areas who have any large number of events do. I don't fear an elo system, I simply don't feel it is needed for most fencers. We don't yet have a problem in WS,MS,MF,WE,WF nor is there a sign that we are going to have on anytime soon. Many lower level fencers like the letter system because of the earning a rating feeling. So what we are fixing is the top part of the D1 ME. There are many potential issues with setting up a system and then implimenting it. There is the fact that the starting data is based on the old system, so it will take sometime for it to wash out the info. Women will be less inclined to fence mixed events as this is more likely to negatively affect their ratings. I can keep listing them when I get home, the Treo has a limited size post.

The negative effect on mixed events is a good point. Although there are ways around it. You can always exclude women and their ratings for calculation purposes. Or you could just have women with lower Elo ratings than men, but that's not PC.

Whether or not lower fencers like the system is unimportant. Seeding effectively is what's important. If a fencer wants to get attached to 1267, they can be my guest, and if they're not, I don't care.

Even if Div1 men's epee were the only thing that needs fixing, it should be fixed. I somehow doubt this is a problem limited to epee, so it will need to be fixed in other weapons sooner or later. And it's not fair to men's epee to just ignore their rating inflation.

[contre-Sixte]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Whether or not lower fencers like the system is unimportant. Seeding effectively is what's important.

Actually, it's quite important. There was a time when there were only A,B, and C ratings. That was expanded to make fencing more attractive to newbies. There was a time when there was no DIV2 or DIV3. Once again, these were created to expand the sport, not make it more exclusive. Why should we even think about a new rating system for the relatively minor benefit of improving seeding if it had the relatively major downside of diminishing the sport's popularity?

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by contre-Sixte

Actually, it's quite important. There was a time when there were only A,B, and C ratings. That was expanded to make fencing more attractive to newbies. There was a time when there was no DIV2 or DIV3. Once again, these were created to expand the sport, not make it more exclusive. Why should we even think about a new rating system for the relatively minor benefit of improving seeding if it had the relatively major downside of diminishing the sport's popularity?

Creating D and E increased the number of grades, making it easier to gain a rating, and increased differentiation of fencers who used to be Us, which is just what the Elo system would do. Whether or not they like the number designator they get shouldn't be an issue. If some guy thought his D06 was so much better than his exactly equivalent 650 that he quits fenicng, I don't care. He was a moron.

Div II and Div III would need to be redefined, but it's not like they would just go away. You could theoretically break it down into even finer divisions very easily by stating the tournament range is 550-1050.

[fatfencer]

[quote=erooMynohtnA;544561]You are totally wrong.

I'm glad you're in an area where you don't see obviously overrated divisions, where one or two people barely manage to earn a rating and just end up trading it around with other members of their division, making what would be a C1, a B1. Their Us become Es, Es become Ds, and Ds become Cs. Eventually it works its way all the way up to A. In that area, there is misseeding on every level compared to the national standard of how good a U, E, D, C, B, or A fencer is. I think that affects more than the top 5%.

I'm absolutely stunned that I agree with you you Madtownie-cheesehead I live in such an overrated division.


I think anyone who opposes the Elo opposes it out of fear of the unknown (or of math), because they've never seen one applied, and the level of accuracy (and simplicity) that can be achieved. I, too, am not terribly good at math, but I am good enough to figure out my 5.5% sales tax with a pad of paper if I have to. The math for an Elo is no harder


Too true, but we live in the giterdun, good ol' US of A where we duz no math.


Giterdun Cheesehead!

Fat(Cable Guy)Fencer

[fencerbill]

I approve of the idea of a better classification system.

I despair of effective implementation of any system I have heard of.

My immediately listable reasons are:

Fencers are anarchists.

Who is going to do the work? Overworked division secretaries? A multiltude of undertrained well-meaning meet managers?

How do we protect the integrity of the system? It is hard enough to collect fencer numbers to submit in support of rating changes.

I'll stop here while I try to organize my other three pages of specific concerns.

Subsequent Edit: I like the idea of the new membership card with the bar code. Didn't radio shack have little bar code readers to use with their catalogs? It was so long ago I think I threw mine out. They were giving them away.

[eac]

Nobody seems to object to the idea of a quarterly-released ratings list; this is how chess does it, and from discussions here appears to be the way to go.

I also agree that the amount of rating change proposed by Masin is too much. For a given fencing episode, the rating should change only maybe 30-50 points.

fencerbill: The USFA national office will do the work, just like they currently certify letters and send out the resulting new cards. It will not involve much more work for them, as in both cases you just have to fax/mail them a results listing, and the math is negligibly more difficult given a computer.

I'm not sure what you mean about protecting the integrity of the system. The USFA national office has shown a lot of integrity in adjudicating highly fought-over positions (e.g. national teams), and as established earlier in the thread your ratings adjustments are not hard to validate with a pen and paper.

The argument about whether we should care about low-rated fencers as well as high-rated ones is kind of moot, since seeding improves for them as well, and I don't really understand how they could have a downside to this whole problem. Low-rated fencers are also more commonly invested in their ratings, so they would likely welcome a change to a more granular system. I don't think there's any risk of an Elo system driving people away from the sport at all.

Edit: Could the two poll-is-flawed voters possibly come out and say what's flawed about the poll? I tried to include all possible opinions about the stated resolution.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by eac

fencerbill: The USFA national office will do the work, just like they currently certify letters and send out the resulting new cards. It will not involve much more work for them, as in both cases you just have to fax/mail them a results listing, and the math is negligibly more difficult given a computer.

Most of the discussion (elsewhere, not always here) has taken as a base assumption that there's an online results reporting system. Results lists are input electronically and the calculations are done automatically. Having the results of every tournament sent in hardcopy (fax or mail) to the national office for data entry is a non-starter. Having to input that much data is SIGNIFICANTLY more work than they are currently required to do, and not something for which current staffing would allow.

Not that this default assumption delays any possible start date.

On the other hand, if this helps push along the organization into having such a (official) system (which could potentially be used for many other purposes if designed even semi-intelligently), we get a major win, even aside from the improved ratings system.

Originally Posted by eac