Olympic Rings program

[CindyBent]

This is from Cindy Bent. I'm the pr person for US Fencing, and I'd like to get a new program going calle the Olympic Ring Program. Basically, fencers will earn "rings" (probably patches or pins) and certificates for graduated accomplishments in competition. I want this program to be an incentive to compete, and a way to benchmark your own progress. The ring program should be partly for fun, but also a serious incentive. The last rings will be very hard to earn, to give the program meaning.
Keeping in mind that we have only five rings, I wanted to see what people thought about the draft levels I've come up with. Feel free to reply here or directly to me at USFencing@hotmail.com. Thanks!


First Ring - Awarded beginning the first year, this cycle, 2000-01.
Awarded to fencers who have completed the following:
Any three competitions with six entries or more on the Divisional level, place in the top 30 percent.
Any three competitions with 20 entries or more, Sectional level, place in top 40 percent.
Any three North American Cups, any level or number of entries, place in the top 50 percent.
Or any combination of the above.

Second Ring - Awarded in the second year of program, this cycle, 2001-02.
Awarded to fencers who have completed the following:
Place in the top 60 percent of any 10 tournaments of any level.

Third Ring - Awarded beginning the third year of the program, this cycle, 2002-03.
Awarded to fencers who have completed the following:
All fencers concluding the 2002-2003 season ranked in the top 24 of senior rankings, top 20 of the junior rankings, or top 16 of cadet rankings. All fencers placing in the top 24 of Division I Nationals, top 4 of Division II Nationals, top 16 of Under 20 Nationals, or top 12 of Under 16 Nationals.

Fourth Ring - Awarded beginning the third year of the program, this cycle, 2002-03.
Awarded to fencers who have accomplished the following:
All fencers in the top 10 of the Senior rankings, top 4 of the Junior rankings, top 2 Cadets.

Fifth Ring - Awarded in the Olympic years, this cycle, 2004:
All athletes on U.S. Olympic Team.

[swordsen]

Interesting. although I think the first ring needs ome work. there is a big difference between divisional competitions with six peopel and top 50% at a NAC.
Persoanlly, I'd use the qualifications for second ring for the first.

[Zelda]

Ok, i'm australian so feel totally and utterly free to disregard what I am about to say... its a good idea BUT, you need to make the goals more concrete. ie for the first ring, instead of making it a percentage of a mixture of competitions, make it a single type of competition, ie First ring, Divisionals, Second ring Sectionals, Third ring NAC, foruth ring certain rankings, fith ring Representative team. Also I'm not sure how your calander works but dont but "years" on them. Allow people to work through at thier own pace.

[darius]

I agree with swordsen -- the top 60% of 10 tournaments, pretty much means you've committed to an entire season of fencing, whereas the first one is quite ambiguous; I had to read it twice.

The jump between 2nd and 3rd is **HUGE**!! There's a world of difference between placing top 60% in a bunch of tournaments and being on the points list.

Of course, if you wanted to, it might be good to make the first ring a bit easier to attain -- that way the rings span from somebody who just got their feet wet in USFA competition (1) to Olympic team member (5).

darius

[This message has been edited by darius (edited 11-28-2000).]

[CindyBent]

Thanks for the feedback so far - someone else I know also suggested I swap the first two rings. I was worried that 10 tournaments is too much to earn the first ring, because I don't have a feel for how many tournaments people, especially beginners, go to in a year. For my division, for example, if you're a junior you can find ten or more in a year without too much travel, but it's a stretch unless you're pretty committed to find ten opens. What do you all think? cb

[darius]

I agree -- at least in the Western NY division, there's very little USFA action. We do a good deal of travelling for a non-varsity collegiate team, but I've still only competed in 3 USFA events thus far.

I don't think any of the U. of Rochester fencers will see 10 USFA events over the course of the season, with the exception of those who are going to NACs/Nationals.

Part of that is that area colleges aren't affiliating their clubs with the USFA, for fear of affecting the turnout at their competitions.

darius

[This message has been edited by darius (edited 11-28-2000).]

[swordsen]

Well, I can see the ten tournament thing being difficult in some areas. In the southeast it would be easy but here in Cali where I am temporarily ensconced it would be a bear unless there are alot of events that aren't on the div. website.
but I still think it is better than what you had for 1.

[oiuyt]

I'd have to point out again the HUGE leap from 2 to 3 and that very few people can get beyond level 2. Given that and that the method of moving from 2 to 3 and beyond is a much larger incentive than gaining a ring I'm not sure that many people would be into this.
Looking at it from my perspective (a good divisional level fencer and recent B) levels 1 and 2 would be cake, I doubt I'll ever qualify for level 3. That doesn't mean I won't try, and certainly if I continue improving then top 24 is reachable, but it certainly wouldn't inspire to try to reach the level for a third ring, if I'm good enough to be in the top 24, then what's inspiring me is my national ranking and my absolute ability and my placements in specific competitions not an artificial ring system.

Also, regarding the first level, the sectional method. What exactly constitutes a sectional level tournament? Although some sections have circuits (PCS, the circuits in MD/VA/Capitol divsions, I think there's one in the midwest) are these really common? There's nothing that I would call sectional in the Northeast other than North Atlantic Sectionals (okay, Metro Sectionals is also in the Northeast, but entrants to those two are necessarily mutually exclusive). Many local competitions however raech the 20 entrant level that you require of sectional competitions.

I also agree with Darius, it would work better with easier lower levels. I would suggest lowering the first level to something easily obtainable, and then lowering levels 3 and 4 as well.

I'm sounding too negative right now so I'll stop. As proposed it seems that very few people can get anywhere in the system and those that can won't care. This leads to people ignoring the levels they CAN get to because they just highlight that that's ALL they can do. Okay, NOW I'll stop.

A reasonable idea I guess but it needs more work. Hopefully some of the suggestions here can help with that or people can come up with other similar ideas. Okay, now I'll REALLY stop.
-B


------------------
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

[Wafath]

How about changing to represent the levels one goes through in fencing (set at an artifical 5 incriments)

Level 5- You go to local competitions
Level 4- You do well in locals, go to regionals/low level nationals (DIV II/III)
level 3- you do well in regionals/ll nationals, go to NAC DIV I
level 2- Do well in DIV I
level 1- you go to the olympics
(level 0- you win the olympics

So lets leave the highest levels alone.

Level 1- In the olympics
level 2- top 10 on points (top 4 junior/2 cadet)
level 3- (Finish top 30% in two NAC DIV II/III and top 50% in one DIV I NAC (or DIV IA)) or ( Finish top 40% in two DIV I/IA events)
Level 4- (finish top 30% in any three local or higher event with 16 or more fencers and finish top 60% in any DIV I/II/III) or (finish top 50% in any two DIV I/II/III)
Level 5- finish top 60% in any 5 events with 16 or more fencers.

Ok, I didn't take into account how to treat junior/cadet events. But the idea is that you would follow the progression of what a fencer would do.

Just a suggestion. I think the jumps need to be tweaked a little bit... maybe some bored person can look at the numbers.

W

[edew]

Is one required to have the first ring before obtaining the second, and so on? That might force the top level fencers (if they desire rings) to compete at local events as well, which may or may not have the desired effect (one of which is getting a US olympic medal).

[azfencer]

Maybe I'm missing something but what is the motivation for a program like this? It seems like a children's program or boy-scout kind of thing. Is it aimed at kids or are adults supposed to get excited about earning rings? Is it supposed to complement the letter ratings somehow?

[oiuyt]

Ring 1: win a tournament with at least 6 fencers.
Ring 2: win a tournament with at least 15 fencers.
Ring 3: win a tournament with at least 15 fencers, at least 2 of whom have 3 rings, at least two of whom have 2 rings and at least 2 of whom have 1 ring, with at least 2 each of the 2 and 3 ring variety in the final 8.
Ring 4: see above but moving each of the ring counts one higher.
Ring 5: same as 4 but another one higher.
And then allow people taking 2nd or 3rd to get the ring one less than if they had won.
And 4th-6th 2 less. And 7-9th 3 less.
And then have special cases for the really large (national-level) tournaments.
Oh wait, we already HAVE a program like that.



------------------
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

[HilandDoug]

Cindy, I agree with Azfencer and Oiuyt. What's the point of the system? We already have a system in place for ratings. And not everyone who takes up the sport has the time, the resources, or the inclination to become an Olympic fencer. Given that, where's the motivation to earn only a portion of the prize? Considering that only 3 or 4 people per weapon make it to the Olympics, you'd have a program that, by design, can only be completed by, at most, 12 people in the whole country.

Want to make a whole lot of fencers happy? Put your time into lobbying ESPN2 to televise JO's and Nationals. I've got broadcast experience, and could do color commentary, gratis. (sorry, couldn't resist that last part.) And it sure would increase exposure of the sport a whole lot better than instituting a system that seems redundant to many.

Just my 2 cents worth. Thanks for listening.

[CindyBent]

A few clarifications:
A fencer can earn any of the rings in any year, not just the first or fourth or whatever I put. I was kind of unclear there.
The program is supposed to be an incentive to beginners and kids to compete more. It's not to replace or have anything to do with the letter system - it's just to reward competition. I guess is is kind of like Scout merit badges.
The higher level rings should be hard to earn, and the fifth should represent the Olympic achievement, to give the program I guess you'd say "cache." If you earn a ring, you should really feel you've accomplished something. Letter ratings are kind of dry, and sometimes don't reflect the competitor's achievements - I have friends who were c's for years after they should have been b's, just because rated competitions were hard to find. Plus, the patches should be fun for kids.
The program is based on a program in Poland that's actually in use, and is very successful. As here, the top levels represent national points and the Olympic team.
The "divisional" and "sectional" labels are gone - just competitions of certain sizes. And your feedback is appreciated - most the levels will shift, probably toward the easier spectrum, as a result of what's come back to me.
Incidentally, I've heard opinions all over the board - some coaches thought the levels too easy! And some said they were all too hard. and believe me, I *AM* trying to get ESPN's attention - if you know anyone there, let me know! Thanks again and keep it coming!

[Craig]

Cindy - thanks for clarifying the purpose and goal for your program. That helps us to evaluate it much better.

I think it's a good program and will help accomplish your goals of giving the younger fencers something tangible to earn and be proud of.

Keep the good ideas coming and thanks for your work at the USFA.

Craig