February 2008 BoD Board Meeting

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

While I'm writing, a quick note on the "trickle-down" motion. This might look familiar to some people. An identically-worded motion was presented (by me) last July. It failed on second-hearing in September with a tied vote (tie-breaking vote cast by the President on advice by the EC). We'll see if there's a different result this time through. Unsurprisingly, I still support this motion. Obviously for it to go into effect on time without amendment it'll have to be moved to urgent status.

-B

For what it's worth, I think the "trickle-down" motion is a good middle ground for SN numbers. Miami was just way too calm and quiet and easy for a SN, for my taste. I mean, I'm seriously in favor of workable numbers for SN, but there ought to be a bit more challenge to running the monster than we had last year.

Mary

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I have no reports. As mentioned previously they will be distributed at some future point. Until then they are unlikely to show up here.

-B

Oh come on... You're THE BRAD... stop holding out on us... I know you can make things appear just by willing them... I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN.

-w

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by mgriff

For what it's worth, I think the "trickle-down" motion is a good middle ground for SN numbers. Miami was just way too calm and quiet and easy for a SN, for my taste. I mean, I'm seriously in favor of workable numbers for SN, but there ought to be a bit more challenge to running the monster than we had last year.

Mary

Hey, if we're going to have small numbers, I'm all for it being in a place where the beach is 2 blocks away!

Plus, we had a great crew up on the BC stage, so that made it easy.

-w

[edew]

Originally Posted by mgriff

For what it's worth, I think the "trickle-down" motion is a good middle ground for SN numbers. Miami was just way too calm and quiet and easy for a SN, for my taste. I mean, I'm seriously in favor of workable numbers for SN, but there ought to be a bit more challenge to running the monster than we had last year.

Mary

I think that's the cool margaritas talking...

[NotIndPk]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I have no reports. As mentioned previously they will be distributed at some future point. Until then they are unlikely to show up here.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I have no reports. As mentioned previously they will be distributed at some future point. Until then they are unlikely to show up here.

-B

Makes one wonder what was meant by "see enclosed report".

[veeco]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

It was thoughtful of Mr. Masin to provide a graph box of just how badly the US teams fell short of their seedings at St. Petersburg.

However; I think I can safely say that a lack of opportunities to compete as a team domestically was NOT the main contributing factor to the disappointing placement of the WS team.

But then again, at the same time, the French teams won pretty much every team event at the last couple of world championships. Interestingly enough, the French national team championships are organized in a very different manner, much like the NFL or MLB playoffs work in the states.

They take place over the whole year, with home and away matches. The teams advance in the DE table if they win both home and away matches. If the home and away matches are split among both teams, there is a "sudden death" match that takes place with 3 encounters, using a predetermined order for the fencers.

Of course, this system has some drawbacks: some clubs don't have the money to send their teams on matches all over the country for a full season, for instance.

But on the other hand, every fencer on those teams gets to fence _a lot_ of team bouts during the year. This could be the reason why France is such a dominant force in team events lately.

Even if the hypothesis from George Masin doesn't hold true for the WS squad (which IMO still has to be proven), I am pretty sure it is indeed true for a lot of other US teams. I participated in the US Olympic training camp for the US men's epee team before the Athens Olympics, and when pitted against Erik Hansen, David Rosenberg, and Gago Demirchian, all veterans of team matches, the US team couldn't win a single team match.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Interesting.

Let's take the case of the French WS team. Do the members of the 2006/2007 World Champion team compete as a unit against all other teams cobbled together from clubs across the country, or are they split across multiple teams, and compete together only on the French National Team during events like GPs and World Championships?

[oiuyt]

Perhaps the US out-performs at team world cups, resulting in an inflated seed prior to the World Championships.

Or perhaps we always use our top people for those events, while other countries use them for developmental (or other) purposes.

Or some mix of the two.

Or we pick up points from a weak(er) Zonal Championship than the top teams do. Again resulting in inflated seeding.

Or something else completely that again means that, relative to other countries, our season-long performance is higher than could be explained purely on our relative ability.

Or maybe this year was a quirk. It would be interesting to see a similar chart that included more than a single data point (or six datapoints if separating the weapons).

Or perhaps the problem is that we need more practice at team events, as suggested in the motion.

It's hard to really figure out which is the "true" answer, even assuming that there is only one and that it occurs on this list.

-B

[veeco]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Interesting.

Let's take the case of the French WS team. Do the members of the 2006/2007 World Champion team compete as a unit against all other teams cobbled together from clubs across the country, or are they split across multiple teams, and compete together only on the French National Team during events like GPs and World Championships?

They fence split across multiple teams. But I don't think that the point G. Masin is trying to make is that the teams don't have good cohesion, but rather that the fencers, individually, don't get enough opportunities to compete in team events.

As Brad, said, there probably are multiple reasons for the results observed in St. Petersburg. Addressing one of them might not solve the problem as a whole, but could be a step in the right direction.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

OK, then, in the French case, we can sort of rule out a team synergy argument, since they don't compete as a unified team, except in GP and World Championship events--just as the US women do.

I'm not discounting your theory, but I'm curious what specific benefits you believe the US women would accrue--in a series of club-based team events scattered across the country--that they are not getting during the multiple international events.

[T]

Ironically, the w.epee team in St. Petersburg out performed all other teams (except w.saber). The w.epee team probably gets the least support of any USA teams (with no coherent program, no team coach, no camps, no money, no nothing).

Men's epee team did relatively poor in st. petersburg but unfortunately, they were seeded against Sweden in the first round. The Sweden team travels only to a couple of team events every year but yet they have pretty strong fencers. It's a tough draw.

These are 2 examples of team performances that were above expectations and below expectations.

All of that aside, I agree that since the Olympic Teams are being selected by Team events (with the exception of 2 events), it is imperative that the USA squad fence lots of team competitions. This should be part of a comprehensive training program that builds cohesion and experiments with bout order. Unfortunately, the best 'team' is not always the top 4 people in point standings. So, what do you do when a 'team' of 4 people is responsible for qualifying a USA team to the Olympics but the 'team' that gets to compete in the Olympics are not those 4 people (or at least not all of the 4 are the same - actually only 3 people are considered on the 'team' while the 4th is an alternate and last Olympics, they didn't even stay at the Village)? So, there are really 2 problems. One is getting the 'team' some good quality and quantity of team competitions and the second is figuring out how to determine the individuals that will compete at the Olympics on that 'team'.

Our team selection process is based on points, period. There is no room for subjectivity (and most of us are glad of that). But it is not necessarily fair to those team members who might have sacrificed individual performance to benefit the team. One example - in January, the NAC was held on the same weekend as the Grand Prix in Doha (m.epee). The 4 top men went to the grand prix to fence for the team and lost out on all of those NAC points available. Granted, they will (theoretically) have another chance in April but suppose they get the flu or something or their flight is cancelled or whatever and can't make it. Sorry, they don't get to go... (at this point, it doesn't look like the m.epee team is going to qualify but this was a real possible scenario). Is that fair? What can be done about it?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

While I'm writing, a quick note on the "trickle-down" motion. This might look familiar to some people. An identically-worded motion was presented (by me) last July. It failed on second-hearing in September with a tied vote (tie-breaking vote cast by the President on advice by the EC). We'll see if there's a different result this time through. Unsurprisingly, I still support this motion. Obviously for it to go into effect on time without amendment it'll have to be moved to urgent status.

Just as an additional note, as I was just reminded of it (from going through old notes from previous meetings), not only was the motion to restore the qualfication paths defeated on a tied vote, but the motion which removed the qualification paths originally was passed on a tied vote. This is clearly an issue on which the BoD is fairly evenly divided.

As always, on this as well as other motions, I suggest that people express their opinion(s) to their BoD reps. Actually to all of the BoD members, but you're more likely to have access to those that are closest to you. It may or may not make a difference, but it's certainly unlikely to hurt.

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

How does a disciplinary panel get formed, and how does it function? I see very little information about this in the Athlete's Handbook, unless it pertains to an infraction of a fencer at an international meet.

In the AH, 16.2 would seem to apply in situations not involving international competitors. 16.2.3 specifies how such a panel is formed and functions.

-B

[sleepyweasle]

About the team events - my fencer LOVES fencing team events. She would welcome any opportunity to fence more of them just for fun, regardless of any chance for more points or whatever. She just enjoys them. I think it would be a great idea for the junior and senior fencers to have more team competitions, not only to give the National Team more bouts, but to let everyone fence more.
Why do they only have team comps in cadet international comps? You're spending the money to get to the NACs (JOs, summer Nat's, whatever), add a team comp the next day - so you don't have to miss too much school/work - and enjoy!

[oiuyt]

Womens Epee added a "for fun" team event to a D1 NAC a few years ago (Pittsburgh?). I remember having a couple/few of the Temple fencers enter into it. IIRC correctly it included the National Team members, plus others who signed up. 4 teams total? 6? Teams were built on an ad hoc basis (Nat Team stayed as a unit?).

It was organized by Andrea Lagan as an experimental program, but wasn't repeated subsequently.

-B

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Perhaps the US out-performs at team world cups, resulting in an inflated seed prior to the World Championships.

Or perhaps we always use our top people for those events, while other countries use them for developmental (or other) purposes.

Or some mix of the two.

Or we pick up points from a weak(er) Zonal Championship than the top teams do. Again resulting in inflated seeding.

Or something else completely that again means that, relative to other countries, our season-long performance is higher than could be explained purely on our relative ability.

Or maybe this year was a quirk. It would be interesting to see a similar chart that included more than a single data point (or six datapoints if separating the weapons).

Or perhaps the problem is that we need more practice at team events, as suggested in the motion.

It's hard to really figure out which is the "true" answer, even assuming that there is only one and that it occurs on this list.

-B

If you have a point, then please f'ing get to it... this self-pleasuring drivel is nearly as obnoxious as it is long. It is ultimately pointless. The issue is not proposed for discussion on this forum. Let's not pretend that it is...

I have a simple question. Do you plan to support the proposal?

why? or why not?

Feel free to elaborate....

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I have a simple question. Do you plan to support the proposal?

I have an even simpler question. What is the proposal? More team events throughout the season? Wider qualification paths for team events at Nationals? "Our teams don't do well internationally, and something must be done"? The rationale is lengthy, but the actual motion seems pretty vacuous to me...

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

If you have a point, then please f'ing get to it... this self-pleasuring drivel is nearly as obnoxious as it is long. It is ultimately pointless. The issue is not proposed for discussion on this forum. Let's not pretend that it is...

I have a simple question. Do you plan to support the proposal?

why? or why not?

Feel free to elaborate....

I don't have anything to say other than... Holy crap... look who's back.

-w