February 2008 BoD Board Meeting

[teacup]

Since the DIV I Championships are invitation only, why not invite teams to form?

Take for example WE. Looking at the points list, I doubt there are few divisions with three women, let alone three from the same club, but Oregon could have a great team, so could California, NY or Texas.

I am sure it is similar with the other weapons and sexes.

The Women's DIV I event is on Saturday and the WE team event is on Monday.

So to have a team, not only does there have to be three fencers ranked C and above on the senior points list, from the same club, the three fencers have to be willing to arrive Friday and potentially leave Tuesday, since no times are posted. Or perhaps a second or third fencer who isn't on the points list is willing to fly to Portland for just a team event.

And to top it off, for juniors and cadets, points don't even count towards next year's team selection.

Unless you are financially fortunate and willing to miss up to three days of school and work, who is going to compete in the WE Team event?

[KD5MDK]

Not yet. The USFA has had a motion made (whose actual change I am unable to discern) with the stated purpose to encourage team fencing. Whether the USFA is in favor of or trying to encourage team fencing hasn't been stated yet.

[Mr Epee]

I prefer that elected officials state their positions, so that we know where they stand on the issues. This doesn't seem like a difficult task.

Who votes how?

This is extremely important to me.

I put my point once again to Oiuty. Are you in favor or against the Masin proposal?

Transparency is the friend of the non-profit.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I put my point once again to Oiuty. Are you in favor or against the Masin proposal?

I don't know what Mr. Masin's proposal is. I don't know what text in the Ops Manual he is attempting to modify, or what the anticipated change might be. Fortunately, with our first-hearing, second-hearing system there's plenty of time to figure it out. He will present his motion next Sunday. I, as well as any other Board members that are unclear on the intent, will be able to ask questions. It won't come up for a vote until July. That said, I'm likely to grab him before the meeting (likely a couple of days before the meeting) and ask him separately.

Speaking generally now, I think that team events are a) good, b) important, and c) something we should have more of. I don't know that it'll have any significant impact on our international performance in team events to do so.

I also question whether useful conclusions can be drawn from seeing that we finish below our seeding at a World Championships in team events, even if the data is expanded to show a pattern of such, rather than a single year. With only a couple of minutes of thought-exercise it was trivial to come up with several alternative explanations rather than inexperience with team formats. I don't see an obvious or trivial method of determining which conclusions are most likely to be correct.

-B

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I don't see an obvious or trivial method of determining which conclusions are most likely to be correct.

Or a way to decide if they ALL are correct....

AE

[dekko]

In the 70s and 80s there was no such restriction and it was common to see South Texas composite teams win the Men's Epee team event at nationals. The Pentathletes would form a composite team and beat up on the NYC fencers, from what I have heard(take that for what it's worth), they would embarrass the NYC fencers.

Not sure why this was changed and also not sure why someone wants it to revert to 'the way it was'.

[KD5MDK]

They didn't just compete as the USFA member club USMPA?

[dekko]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

They didn't just compete as the USFA member club USMPA?

Not at the time. Not sure where to find it but I have seen it, I think in the back of a media guide, it has a list of all the past champs, team and individual and there are at least a few entries with the men'e team epee champs being South Texas Composite.

Anyone know where to find such a list?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I also question whether useful conclusions can be drawn from seeing that we finish below our seeding at a World Championships in team events, even if the data is expanded to show a pattern of such, rather than a single year. With only a couple of minutes of thought-exercise it was trivial to come up with several alternative explanations rather than inexperience with team formats.

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier. In the case of the WS squad, the same three fencers have been competing together continously since 2005, including their World Championship team victory in Leipzig.

It's safe to say that inexperience in team formats was not a problem for them in St. Petersburg.

However; adding a Junior team event to any or all of the Junior NAC competitions might have some merit worth considering.

[edew]

In regards to team events, I would like to see more team events, even a Div II or Div III level, Vet level, Y14, maybe even Y12. For these, the teams should be constructed from members of a section.

To get a good turn out without having waaaay too many teams, we can restrict the field size to 24 teams total. (Then put them into 8 pools of 3, do round-robin with the three teams in each pool, winning team -- based on match victories/TS-TR, then DE with the final of 8.) There are 10 sections. Each section may enter at least 2 teams. The extra four will be allotted to the four larger sections. In subsequent years, three of the extra four will be allotted to the top-3 finishing sections and the fourth is guaranteed to the host section.

Members of the team, of course, must come from the section. However, at most two fencers from one club in the team. And at least two divisions (if possible, so Metro section/division need not meet this rule) in the team.

Reasons:

1. Pre-determined size of the entry field will make running the event easier and more predictable.

2. Small round-robin ensures that the fencers get at least two team matches. Maybe we can also have the teams that finish 2nd in the pools to fence in their own DE of 8 and the 3rds from the pools to fence their own DE of 8 as well. Then we get a complete listing for the final placement.

3. Lets referees get more team match training. I know that, as a referee, I'm missing a lot of knowledge on certain things. How to correct out-of-order bouting, how to apply individual penalties versus team penalties (for the match), the actual possibility of passivity in team situations, etc.

4. More interesting for the spectators. Let's face it, most spectators at fencing tournaments are fencers or parents or friends of fencers. If you're a member of a particular team, it's no big fun to cheer for said team (or their opponent). But, if you're a member of the Pacific Coast Section and the PCS team is fencing a North Atlantic Section team, then all the PCS spectators will be whooping up a storm while all the NAS spectators will be busy shucking clams by the shore. Erm, they'd be whooping it up as well. Heck, that could even be happening during the pools portion. It will be more "Olympic-style" in interest. You're rooting for your country then, you'll root for your section now.

5. Very likely to get the requisite fencers. It's not too hard to get 6 Div II fencers from a section to hang around for another day. It could be rather hard to get 3 people from a club to hang around for another day.

6. Additional revenue to the USFA. More events, more money. Time-wise, 24 teams will require 24 pool matches and 24 DE bouts (assuming we fence off all places), which is still smaller than some team events with 48+ teams in the field. Of course, we will have more team matches if we do Div II team, Div III team, Vet team (combined age > 140, at least one 50+?), Y14 (combined age < 40, at least one 12-?), etc. But these events need not run after the individuals and can be run the day before or even the day of. Vet events usually run rather quick. And we can certainly put together a team event after the Vet event.

7. Incentive to do well. Next year's number of team entries may increase due to success at this year's team event. We may even use the team results as a factor on determining the number of individual qualifiers from a section for the following season.

[seven6ty]

I also question whether useful conclusions can be drawn from seeing that we finish below our seeding at a World Championships in team events, even if the data is expanded to show a pattern of such, rather than a single year. With only a couple of minutes of thought-exercise it was trivial to come up with several alternative explanations rather than inexperience with team formats. I don't see an obvious or trivial method of determining which conclusions are most likely to be correct.

Well, one explanation I've heard for this type of a pattern is that every quadrennial, in the 2-3 years following the Olympics, most other European countries don't push them self quite as hard as they do during an Olympic season. We begin doing well at this point, get our hopes up... And then the Olympic season comes around and we get our butts kicked again.

[T]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I prefer that elected officials state their positions, so that we know where they stand on the issues. This doesn't seem like a difficult task.

.

For success at the international-level, it is extremely important that we develop a team-competition system. Fencing individually is not the same thing as competing as a team. The role of the various team mates - depending on their position on the score sheet - is very different. It is just not the same as 3 people fencing individually. Team chemistry is also important which means that the top 3 people in the point system do not necessarily make the best team. One of our biggest weaknesses in the USA (I can speak for w.epee specifically but I am sure that it applies to other weapons) is that coaches don't understand all of the various strategies for team events or the role of the various positions. So, it is not only important for us to train the teams to fence as teams, it is also important for us to train the coaches to coach the teams.

As Brad mentioned above, once upon a time, Andrea Lagan put together a practice team match at a competition (this was actually my suggestion to her) but by the time the competition came around (it was a December NAC, I believe) the interim national coach came down, handed out score sheets, and said have fun. That was it... so this obviously is not the kind of team practice that is needed.

As many of you know, I am running for President, and as was mentioned above, it is important to know where candidates stand on the issues. I feel this to be one of the most important issues of the next 4 years. I think it cannot be looked at in isolation. Instead, it is one component of a development of a true national team effort (across all weapons). If we are to increase the number of competitors we field at the Olympics and improve our positions in the world (and thereby increasing the funding both to our athletes and to our national teams by the USOC), we must learn the specifics of team fencing.

Of course, team members need to constantly be in the pipeline for replacement purposes. Instead of taking 2 or 3 years post-Olympics to figure out who will be on the next 'team', it is important to constantly juggle and assess the teams as time goes forward. One way to spot new talent is to have not only team competitions but also to have team training camps. One suggestion I proposed last year to Jim Paige (the High Performance Director before Carpenter) was for a road-trip for the national team up/down the east coast. The idea was to take 6 or so women (w.epee) after the summer nationals but before the world championships, and arrange team competitions/training sessions with as many clubs as could be arranged over a 2 or 3 week period. The 6 women could be used interchangeably and in different roles to see who fits best where. But there would be enough for at least 2 teams. They could then fence at 3 or even 4 clubs each week with arranged team events at each.

That was one idea but I haven't heard of any other ideas proposed. I'm sure there are other good ideas out there but this certainly would be a great training opportunity for both the fencers and the coach/es.

Of course, to get fencers prepared to fence at the national - team level, we need to get them used to fencing team events at the pre-national team level as cadet, juniors. Other divisions can be fun events but I'm not so sure about their place at national tournaments.

Tracy Hurley (www.usfencersforchange.com)

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Following up on team competitions, and the difficulties of pinning down performance issues...here's one of the intangibles that has played out before in the French WS team's favor:

The French have a very strong WS team, but it's populated with good fencers who often fail to make the top 8 or finals in Gran Prix individual meets. In Orleans tonight, no French fencer made it past the 16, with additional losses in the 64 and 32. That means while Sada and Becca fenced all the way to end of a 14-hour day, and didn't get to their hotels until midnight local time, their French opponents could presumably have been back in the hotel by late afternoon, had a relaxed dinner and an early night...in their home time zone.

That could be a huge advantage by tomorrow night's team finals.

It'll be interesting to see how much the US WS team has left in the tank for tomorrow's important team competition.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Update: Apparently enough. USA beats Russia in the team event, France is third.

I lose valuable points in the 2008 "Nostradamus Awards" competition.

[NotIndPk]

......too early to ask?

If not, what were the main decisions made??

[chefencer]

Not yet, but here's some gist:
Preliminary Info

[oiuyt]

Based on historic practice, the minutes will certainly not be officially posted before they have been approved in July.

I will post (completely unofficial) notes from the meeting, probably tonight. Anyone else at the meeting could do so as well.

Rarely there have been official "Action Item Reports" that are effectively draft minutes available shortly after a meeting. If such are available they'll likely be posted here.

-B

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Any word on what, if anything, happened with possibly convening a discipinary panel for the Jeff Bukantz issue?

[KD5MDK]

It was covered in executive session.