Confirmed list for Nationals

[passata_sotto]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

They have to fence at one of those in order to force them to have an experience with a tournament that is hopefully at least resembling in compliance with national standards. That way Summer Nationals isn't their first tournament, though it might be their second.

No, what I meant was that I feel that a fencer should have to fence at an SYC or youth NAC and not just at an RYC. The way the qualifications stand now you can fence an RYC and fence at the Nationals and I feel that if you upped the qualification to SYC and NAC that you would cut down on the number of fencers at this event

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by passata_sotto

Just because of this event I am thinking of starting a thread on why a fencer should have to fence at an SYC or youth NAC in order to fence Y12s at Nationals (I know there are not Nationals youth events but everyone knows what I mean). - Maybe even have to be on the points list - there are Y10s and Y12s who do not fence competitively throughout the year who go to this event and maybe some type of qualifier besides an ryc would help cut back on the numbers.

Since this is supposed to be the one tournament where the USFA makes money on, and which funds all the other NAC's, I think you have an uphill battle there. Right now, I think they like to have as many fencers as they can. Perhaps when the number of fencers goes above 300, they will start thinking about it.

(Speaking as another parent with a kid on the points list, though, I wonder why you are complaining? Having more inexperienced kids there actually smooths the way for the better fencers in the competition during the pool round, does it not? And more DE rounds will help the kids develop their endurance and stamina when they have to do repechage at the cadet level.)

[lurkerdad]

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

Not necessarily, both the A and the B as well as two Cs need to make the top 8 for it to be a B2 event.

Not saying that it is unlikely, but with only one A and one B, should one of them drop a pool bout and they end up running into each other in the 16, no B2 event.

-w

Looking at the list now, Y12MF is also only 4 D's away from being a C3 event. Oh well, maybe there will be some ratings updates come event-time.

[passata_sotto]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Since this is supposed to be the one tournament where the USFA makes money on, and which funds all the other NAC's, I think you have an uphill battle there. Right now, I think they like to have as many fencers as they can. Perhaps when the number of fencers goes above 300, they will start thinking about it.

(Speaking as another parent with a kid on the points list, though, I wonder why you are complaining? Having more inexperienced kids there actually smooths the way for the better fencers in the competition during the pool round, does it not? And more DE rounds will help the kids develop their endurance and stamina when they have to do repechage at the cadet level.)

300 y12s - that is a scary thought -

I did not mean to sound as though I were complaining. I was thinking more of myself being stressed through four events with my youngest alone - looking forward to when he drops his second weapon.
It really is not a problem for the ones who are used to fencing at a large tournament and of course you are correct that it will help when they are fencing as cadets. I cannot imagine how overwhelming it is for a twelve year old who has not fenced in an event with more than 30 people to fence in an event this large.(and yes I know some attending who fall in this category )

Obviously it helps in poules to have less experienced fencers.

Maybe it is a sign of larger numbers in all events in the future, although the new rules in sectional and division qualifiers have cut down on some events.

Re making money at Nationals:I would hate to think that USFA would have to depend on youth fencers to support the program.

[KD5MDK]

Given the way the other event numbers have dropped...

I think that requiring a points list or anything like that to attend Summer Nationals in Y10 and Y12 is a terrible idea, because I don't want the kids that focused on their results. I had to black card a girl at an SYC for throwing her mask across the room, and I think that raising the percieved stakes for parents, fencers and coaches cannot help matters.

[passata_sotto]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Given the way the other event numbers have dropped...

I think that requiring a points list or anything like that to attend Summer Nationals in Y10 and Y12 is a terrible idea, because I don't want the kids that focused on their results. I had to black card a girl at an SYC for throwing her mask across the room, and I think that raising the percieved stakes for parents, fencers and coaches cannot help matters.

First - if my 11 year old (boy) threw his mask or anything else we would have a very serious heart - to - heart discussion along with a period of not fencing

Second - I guess what I am thinking is that there a lot of kids who would just like to fence and throwing them into Nationals with little experience has to be emotionally hard as well as physically demanding. There are some people who thrive on competition ( I know one very well ) and some who do not.

There are some people on the list who do not feel that youth events should be fenced at all at a National level and I would hate to see that happen and would rather see a qualifying path if there is that possibility.

Perspective is always hard to maintain for young people and it is really up to the parents and coaches to not demand results over progress and enjoyment.

I withdraw my suggestion from changing anything at all as regards youth events at Nationals.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lurkerdad

Right now, I think they like to have as many fencers as they can.

If that's the case it wasn't very smart to eliminate the Sectionals qualification path for Div II and III, then...

[edew]

I think it was removed partly because it was confusing as hell to determine who qualified (versus those who were pre-qualified).

[fencerwallet]

I think the current youth qualifying paths for the most part work. For Y10 and Y12 you want fields (although foil is cluttered, isn't this the case even at local levels?). It all changes with Y14 anyway, which is especially good for the Mens events where the qualifying gets tighter, keeping the pre-pubescent who "want but can't do" from being "clubbed to death" by those whose voices have already changed.

[fencerwallet]

As far as numbers go, what difference does it really make to the fencer if the field is, say, 65 people vs. 256? The answer: one additional DE round in the table if you are going to win (granted my "65" field example will have alot of 1st round byes). The real problem is administration/reffing when the fields get so large.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by edew

I think it was removed partly because it was confusing as hell to determine who qualified (versus those who were pre-qualified).

No, that was 2 changes ago. The recent change doesn't fit that description at all. Pre-chaange it was: "If you qualify for IA and are classifications-eligible you've also qualified for D2 and/or D3." Not very complicated.

Even for a math major. :)

The PREVIOUS change was absolutely largely due to the complexity and high number of errors (people told they had qualified when they hadn't or told they hadn't qualified when they had).

-B

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by fencerwallet

As far as numbers go, what difference does it really make to the fencer if the field is, say, 65 people vs. 256? The answer: one additional DE round in the table if you are going to win (granted my "65" field example will have alot of 1st round byes). The real problem is administration/reffing when the fields get so large.

Also the length of the event, as each additional 60 fencers adds an hour to the event, I'd bet, even at a NAC. When you start at 8am and finish at 4 pm, say, that's a long time for a fencer.