Earning Ratings - Classification Chart updated

[JEC]

The BOD passed a motion to update the classification chart, which was also posted yesterday at the USFA website.

http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/content/view/2117/138/

The only change that I see is the awarding of classifications at A1 events.

Now, there is only 1 B earned (2nd), Cs are for 3rd and 4th, Ds for 5th and 6th, and Es for 7th and 8th.

When does it starts being enforced?

Do you agree with the change?

How big is this change? Peet can you help us with your database?

[HDG]

To add to JEC's questions: Why was it changed?

[RebelFencer]

To add to JEC's questions: Why was it changed?

There are a LOT of B's in Epee. Could be an attempt to curve it, since it would be really easy to get a fluke top 4 in a small (15 person) A1 tournament.

[oiuyt]

The only change was to the A1 level.

Given that no "effective starting" date was associated with the Board motion, I'd say that it went into effect on July 1st. I could easily see myself being over-ruled by the National Office and have it go into effect today (conveniently the start of the season).

The change was a result of some people disliking the fact that A1 tournaments didn't award any E classifications. Adding E's without removing something (as per the original motion from last September) would have resulted in more than half the field receiving a classification (something that otherwise only occurs in an A4).

Some additional information about the motion and the change can be found in the threads about the Board meetings in September 2006 and July 2007.

-B

[JEC]

Brad,

It would be nice to have small studies of the motion before its approval to prevent unintended consequences. Clearly, USFA ought to have the information of how many A1 tournaments occurred in 2003 vs 2006. How many classifications were awarded through this mechanism? How many of those people who got awarded a classification via this mechanism renewed it again the same or following year as compared to A2 or other mechanisms? Etc.

We saw at this SN what happened when they changed the qualification path (i.e.: no longer sectionals) to get into the Div. II and III events, had a ripple effect on other events. A motion without studying prior events is an wild guess (as compared to an educated guess). It does not mean that educated guesses will always be correct, but hopefully they will be right more often than wild guesses.

Thanks,

JEC

[larkmaj]

Clearly, USFA ought to have the information of how many A1 tournaments occurred in 2003 vs 2006. How many classifications were awarded through this mechanism? How many of those people who got awarded a classification via this mechanism renewed it again the same or following year as compared to A2 or other mechanisms? Etc.

Unfortunately the USFA does not have this data. All they have are the classification changes for a tournament if that tournament had any. They don't have results or even the rating of the tournament. Sounds like they should be keeping track of this sort of thing. In this day and age, it's pretty easy to keep track of the information you suggest. I seriously doubt the USFA will ever be able to do it though.

[oiuyt]

It would be nice to have small studies of the motion before its approval to prevent unintended consequences. Clearly, USFA ought to have the information of how many A1 tournaments occurred in 2003 vs 2006. How many classifications were awarded through this mechanism? How many of those people who got awarded a classification via this mechanism renewed it again the same or following year as compared to A2 or other mechanisms? Etc.

We saw at this SN what happened when they changed the qualification path (i.e.: no longer sectionals) to get into the Div. II and III events, had a ripple effect on other events. A motion without studying prior events is an wild guess (as compared to an educated guess). It does not mean that educated guesses will always be correct, but hopefully it will be more often than wild guesses.

While I don't disagree with your premise, a couple of points.

The USFA DOESN'T currently have information on how many A1 tournaments were held during the year. Even if the National Office had a mechanism for tracking all past results they receive (I don't know whether or not they do, but suspect that if they do it's a hard copy filing system of the reports they've received), they only get information about tournaments at which a classification was earned.

Secondly, the Board appears to like WAGs. Changing that is a long-term project.

While I do believe that some of the members were voting for this motion as a means of reducing the classifications given out in A1 tournaments (one (at best) semi-joking comment was that the A for first should also be removed), this motion originated in a form that would have expanded the number of classifications awarded. It was the amended version (both versions coming from the Tournament Committee, I believe) that reduced the awards.

One thing that would help with the decision making process would be people going through the agendae in advance of the meetings and raising issues before the discussion/voting takes place. Certainly discussion here on f.net has helped me see additional points in the past. There are at least several Board members that lurk here, at least some of the time. Discussion here has been directly quoted in Board meetings in the past and indirectly referenced even more often.

I suggest that people read the agendae when I post them and then advocate with their various representatives. Let them know when there's an issue that you care about and what your opinion is.

Back to the original topic, for those who haven't followed the link yet, the new chart has an A1 as awarding the same classifications as a B1, except that first receives an A (rather than a B) and second receives a B (rather than a C). The criteria for a tournament to qualify as an A1 (15+ entries, including 2+ A's, 2+ B's, 2+ C's, with 2+ A's and 2+ B's in the top 8) remained unchanged.

-B

[JEC]

Thanks, Brad.

Perhaps USFA does not have the entire database of A1 tournaments (denominator) but they have some of the information that I requested for this particular issue. That is, who EARNED classifications with A1 tournaments in 2003 vs 2006 (or 2005) in all 3 weapons, and how they fare the following classification year. Were they able to renew? Did the 2003 (or 2002 A1s) ratings renewed or improved in 2004 of at a higher rate than those in 2005 (renewed in 2006? Is there a trend that A1 ratings are truly less deserving than A2s, A3s or A4s?

Peet has a large sample of A1 tournaments with obvious regional bias. He might be able to answer some of these questions.

[larkmaj]

they have some of the information that I requested for this particular issue. That is, who EARNED classifications with A1 tournaments in 2003 vs 2006 (or 2005) in all 3 weapons, and how they fare the following classification year.

The USFA does not know the classification of tournaments in which a fencer earns a rating, just the rating that the fencer earned at said tournament.

[Redblade]

It would be nice to have small studies of the motion before its approval to prevent unintended consequences.

What consequences do you imagine this very small change might have? Worst-case scenario, please.

And why do you believe a "small study" would require your personal feedback?

[edew]

Unfortunately the USFA does not have this data. All they have are the classification changes for a tournament if that tournament had any. They don't have results or even the rating of the tournament. Sounds like they should be keeping track of this sort of thing. In this day and age, it's pretty easy to keep track of the information you suggest. I seriously doubt the USFA will ever be able to do it though.

One of the nice things about our local competition series, the Bay Cup, is that all results with all competitors and all places are posted. That helps everybody get a good feel on how people are getting their classifications, what to expect in future events, what are the expected sizes and other useful information for future competitions.

[tbryan]

The only change was to the A1 level.

Given that no "effective starting" date was associated with the Board motion, I'd say that it went into effect on July 1st. I could easily see myself being over-ruled by the National Office and have it go into effect today (conveniently the start of the season).

So, I guess Peet needs to update AskFred.net.

[edew]

The only change was to the A1 level.

Given that no "effective starting" date was associated with the Board motion, I'd say that it went into effect on July 1st. I could easily see myself being over-ruled by the National Office and have it go into effect today (conveniently the start of the season).

The change was a result of some people disliking the fact that A1 tournaments didn't award any E classifications. Adding E's without removing something (as per the original motion from last September) would have resulted in more than half the field receiving a classification (something that otherwise only occurs in an A4).

Some additional information about the motion and the change can be found in the threads about the Board meetings in September 2006 and July 2007.

-B

Maybe Aug 1 for the new season? I'd hate to think that it would be retroactive to results from Summer Nationals.

[dekko]

Peet has a large sample of A1 tournaments with obvious regional bias. He might be able to answer some of these questions.

No disrespect to Peet but why would the USFA care what askfred has for event results? Askfred is not official in anyway. How many of these events are sanctioned? While I agree that askfred has lots of data none of it is official therefore, for this case, fairly useless. Don't misunderstand, I like and use askfred but until it is made official, if ever, ............

[oiuyt]

Maybe Aug 1 for the new season? I'd hate to think that it would be retroactive to results from Summer Nationals.

Oh, I'll certainly concede that there SHOULD have been an "effective as of" provision in the motion. In the previous discussion on this topic that took place last month, I already mentioned that I'll try to ensure that such dates are included with future motions. That said, there was no such provision on the motion, as passed.

This does affect the V40MS event from Miami, as well as any non-National events that took place during the rest of July. And, just to reiterate, in case it was missed in my earlier post, I would be unsurprised to have the National Office decide that 8/1/07 is the effective date, even though that's not how I would read what was actually decided.

-B

[notalent]

Brad I dont think they make the change until after SN as that competition started on 6-29. 8-1 makes the most sense as that is the start of the new season.

[peet]

So, I guess Peet needs to update AskFred.net.

That is correct.

Dan and I were just discussing that we will both have to be updating our respective projects (FRED and Fencing Time) to accommodate this change last weekend.

The one thing that I am missing to do it correctly is the effective date of the change, which it appears is less than clear.

-p

[oiuyt]

Brad I dont think they make the change until after SN as that competition started on 6-29. 8-1 makes the most sense as that is the start of the new season.

I would also buy the argument that, even with immediate application, any tournaments already in progress would fall under the old rules, even for events that had not yet started.

I agree that 8/1/07 makes more SENSE than immediate application (mid-morning on 7/1/07). Just to check, we ARE all talking about the USFA, right? Mmmmm.

S'okay, you can read all about it once we officially publish the minutes in a bit over a month or so. :)

-B

[peet]

No disrespect to Peet but why would the USFA care what askfred has for event results? Askfred is not official in anyway. How many of these events are sanctioned? While I agree that askfred has lots of data none of it is official therefore, for this case, fairly useless. Don't misunderstand, I like and use askfred but until it is made official, if ever, ............

The FRED data on this question would be useful in the sense that it gives an idea of what the effect of the change is likely to be.

The data need not be official to have that value, it just needs to be reasonably accurate, which it is. Non-sanctioned events are listed in FRED as NR, i.e. not rated, and so don't list earned ratings. Occasional errors notwithstanding, the earned ratings info in FRED is pretty accurate.

The main caveat is the regional bias that FRED has. Any use of the statistics in the FRED db need to take that into account, but it doesn't invalidate the analysis completely.

Incidentally, you can all do this analysis using the results search feature in FRED. Just choose the "super search", and specify the earned rating of the result, the finishing place, and the classification of the event. Do that for all the scenarios that you would like to compare, write down the number of records found for each one, and compile whatever ratios are relevant to the question.

-p

[dberke]

That is correct.

Dan and I were just discussing that we will both have to be updating our respective projects (FRED and Fencing Time) to accommodate this change last weekend.

The one thing that I am missing to do it correctly is the effective date of the change, which it appears is less than clear.

-p

Unfortunately the current version of Fencing Time isn't easily changed, so the current version will still use the old A1 category awards. For some reason, I didn't make that data-driven like I did with the qualifier rules.

Luckily, I have changed that in the new version, so future changes won't be an issue. And of course, the new version will have the correct A1 awards.

So, if you're using Fencing Time and run an A1 tournament, please adjust your results accordingly!

Dan