New development in USFA politics!

[HDG]

Overall, I think he has done a good job. The changes that you are referring to (which I assume are foil) were voted on by the Congress. Roch didn't enact them all by himself. I agree that the timing issue on the lights may not have been the best decision, in that it blocks out some attacks and, more importantly, has an impact on whether the lights go off at all if the point bounces off a hard target - but it minimizing the impact of the flick, and because of this I think, was a good decision (although you might not think so if you were one of the ones that used the flick attack all of the time). I also think the newest rule of making the bib a valid target is a good one. Some of the bibs were getting pretty big and covering a lot of target.

I think this paragraph may have cost you many votes. One of the changes you don't mention (forgive me if it came up in an earlier posting -- there have been a lot) is visor masks. Thumbs up or down on that Roch initiative?

[Goldgar]

I can confirm that a strict reading of the Ops Manual implys that only the 3-4 formats listed in the Ops Manual are appropriate for awarding ratings.

I'm not sure whether we're reading it the same way or not, so I'm going to go into details. Also, I may be reading an outdated copy of the manual. The one I'm looking at is the one currently on the downloads page of the USFA website, called the 2006 Edition and designated Version 2006-1. It's quite possible that there's a later version I didn't find, or that updates have been distributed separately.

Anyway, what I read says:

Section 2: Formats
A. General
In local competitions there are a number of variations that can be used to benefit the level of fencers in that division, both in individual and team competitions. In addition to the formats that are discussed below, the following can be used at non qualifying competitions:

Brazilian: 100% promoted from a pool round to direct elimination
Canadian: 80% promoted to simple direct elimination down to 16 fencers; followed by 2 pools of 8 fencers, fenced on 4 strips; 8 fencers promoted to direct elimination of 8.

If the Division sees a need for additional direct elimination bouts then it can add repêchage to its format in the direct elimination round, whether at complete tableau of 32 or of 16. This allows fencers to gain more experience with 15 touch bouts before competing at a national tournament.

The "formats that are discussed below" are:

B. Pools
[...]
C. Direct Elimination: National Competitions

It seems clear to me from this and what follows in the Ops Manual that you can have competitions with ...

(a) only pool rounds, all the way to the top
(b) one or more rounds of pools, with or without cuts, followed by a DE, with or without repechage
(c) pools to DE to pools to DE

It doesn't seem that pools of one-touch bouts, for example, would be accepted (because the description of pool rounds specifically speaks of five-touch bouts), but I gather that they have been in some cases. I suppose that may be covered as a "variation that can be used to benefit the level of fencers in that division". The Ops Manual doesn't out-and-out state, "Only these formats may be used," but I would expect that any variation from these formats would, at the very least, be scrutinized very closely to determine that it is fair and has at least as good a chance of returning a representative ranking as the approved formats. Here's where Peter's mathematical models could be helpful, but would he be able to get anyone in the National Office to really evaluate them?

Recently, a special line was included on the USFA's Rating Change Form so that the tournament supervisor could include the competition format.

And a fine thing, too.

[T]

I think this paragraph may have cost you many votes. One of the changes you don't mention (forgive me if it came up in an earlier posting -- there have been a lot) is visor masks. Thumbs up or down on that Roch initiative?

Perhaps I should clarify. I was asked my opinion about (what I suspected was) the changes in foil. So I answered with my opinion (and I don't think I would be alone in that opinion -- but that is not the point). The question asked was not whether I would have voted based on my opinion and my opinion alone. IF asked that question about how the US should vote for any changes to any rules about any of the weapons, my answer would be that I would ask an ad-hoc committee of foil experts (if the rule changes were about foil) about what their opinion was about the proposed changes. I would then vote based on the opinion of our experts in the subject. I would also advocate for our political allies to vote the same way (once we get some). We would have to have allies to get anything passed.

So far, you have basically shot down most everything I had to say but yet, I am still answering you. The members of the USFA have a variety of viewpoints and you may or may not agree with them but that doesn't mean that your viewpoint (or mine) is any less valuable. Governance and Leadership is about the process of asking, listening, reading, etc. and making decisions based on the information that you collect. It is not about unilateral decisions or empty rhetoric.

Now if you want to know my personal opinion about the visors. I don't like them. IMHO (as humble as it may be) it makes the sport too personal (and it appears they haven't worked out all of the kinks yet). That is my opinion but that is not necessarily how I would vote. Again, the process of asking, listening, and reading would come into play before a decision was made on how to vote.

[HDG]

So far, you have basically shot down most everything I had to say but yet, I am still answering you.

I haven't shot down anything; I've been a silent reader of these threads.

[T]

My apologies for mistaking you for someone else.

[jfarmer]

The problem is that the USFA has no customer service. In fact, I was told by a member of the NC that (and I even think I read it in a post by him in another thread) that (paraphrased) it was ridiculous for members to demand customer service. The USFA has 3 full-time staffers for elite-athletes but still that function is not handled well. Much of the duties that these full-time staffers are involved in revolve around USOC compliance duties, FIE international paperwork, and organizing world championship trips (where, btw, the athletes and their family members are treated like an inconvenience). Little, of which, is direct customer service but they are things that need to be done. How many staffers do they have for the non-elite fencers? None, that are dedicated solely to this function. With the current organizational structure, there is no one in charge of this large membership contingent. The office staff can only do so much - and I will agree that they are overworked and underpaid.

So while you picture the problem as being an elite vs. non-elite cultural problem, I suggest that it is a customer service problem prevalent from top to bottom. Everyone is getting the shaft in terms of customer service. Many coaches don't join; parents don't join; and the only reason the fencers join is so that they can fence at tournaments a few weekends a month. There is no other compelling reason why anyone would join the USFA. And, believe it or not, that is one of the main reasons why I am running. One of my top priorities (as discussed in the platform) is improving customer service. The customers are fencers, just like you.

The purposes of the USFA shall be:

1. To promote the social welfare by advancing physical fitness through the establishment, maintenance and promotion of regular programs of athletic activity, physical conditioning and training in the art and sport of fencing.
2. To combat juvenile delinquency by providing, for children and youths, regular supervised programs of wholesome athletic activity and training in the art and sport of fencing.
3. To further individual self-discipline, build character and promote sportsmanship by providing regular supervised training, instruction and competition in the art and sport of fencing.
4. To aid in the improvement and development of the powers of analysis, thinking, decision-making, and self-discipline of the individual through training in the art and sport of fencing.
5. To provide programs of supervised and qualified instruction with approved and trained coaches and teachers in the art and sport of fencing.
6. To organize and supply direction for intercollegiate and interscholastic fencing meets and competitions.
7. To instruct the public and provide general information with respect to the art and sport of fencing and the benefits to be derived from participation therein through lectures and other programs on the subject useful to the individual and beneficial to the community.
8. To disseminate knowledge and basic factual material about the art and sport of fencing.
9. To establish classes of formal instruction in the art and sport of fencing by a regular faculty according to a regular curriculum at fixed locations.
10. To establish and promote a nationwide program of fencing competitions.
11. To establish and promote the growth of fencing clubs and salles d*armes throughout the country.
12. To select and prepare individuals and teams to represent the United States in international competitions including the Olympic Games and the Pan-American Games.
13. To encourage the art and sport of fencing in the United States of America, its territories and possessions, to define amateur status in respect to fencing and to formulate and enforce regulations relating thereto.
14. To formulate and publish rules for management of fencing contests and exhibitions in the United States of America, its territories and possessions.
15. To group all fencers within its territorial jurisdiction for the purposes of conducting annual local and national championships, and competitions preliminary thereto designed to awaken and maintain interest in competitive fencing as well as in the art of fencing as a cultural promotion and exercise.
16. To promote “people-to-people” friendship by maintaining harmonious relations with fencing systems of foreign countries and committees of other organizations interested in promoting international competitions and advancing the sport and art of fencing.

I've been reading bylaws a lot recently (we're working on new ones for our division) so after I had read your note, I pulled up the USFA's bylaws.

I'm not convinced that the answer is customer service, I think rather that it's a failure to maintain focus. Notice from the list that is the stated purpose of the USFA, that there are only 5 items that directly deal with competitions, and one of those is to set the rules for competitions. so far, most of the talk has centered around "how to fix the NACs", or how to improve competitions for elite/non-elite fencers.

Now I'm not so naive to believe that every item in the list of purposes has equal weight, but it seems to me that the USFA has ignored the majority in service to just a few. And from the discussions, it's not successful there (promoting competitions, preparing competitors for major international events, etc.). This leads me to believe that it's more than a customer service failure, it's a failure to fully embrace all the facets of the organization's purpose.

So, my question to you, Dr. Hurley, is what do you see can or should be done? Can the USFA effectively do anything other than "Run major events & prepare Olympic Athletes"? Should it? How can the national office embrace the original organizational purposes?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Now about the FIE President...
I have heard and read that Usmanov is not going to run. So if he isn't going to run, then Roch will win. Usmanov is a very wealthy contributor to fencing that has been President of the European Confederation of Fencing. He built up his following primarily by injecting prize money and support to European events and smaller European-country fencing organizations (mostly former Soviet Union countries). Money is a good thing but it is not a sufficient cause to elect him President. Roch is 78 years old - which is getting up there considering how much traveling is required. Personally, I wish there was a 3rd alternative (but I haven't heard of anyone).

Further questions about FIE presidents:
1. As you say, Roch can not continue forever. Given that, is there anyone specific among those who presently hold elected positions either in FIE, the continental federations, or the fencing NGB´s that you consider especially fit to succeed him?
2. Have you been checking up on possible candidates (post-Roch, post-Usmanov) whether they seem like good candidates? If not, why?

Does that mean that perhaps Usmanov could not be recruited to hold an Honorary or Emeritus position? This might be attractive to him -- giving him some notability while at the same time, giving him an opportunity to contribute to the sport (through money and through his influence in certain parts of the world) and relieving him of the regular responsibilities of the job.

Sounds like a good idea. Do you know anyone outside of USFA whom you might approach with this suggestion, in order to have credibility when offering him such a post?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Durando]

Doesn't everyone have a conflict of interest in fencing? We all do. Is mine more than anyone else's? Probably not as much as you may think.


As President, what could I do to benefit my daughters' position? I could change it so that my daughters received all of the money or perhaps all of the points or maybe that they could make all world teams or whatever... (yes, this is sarcasm).

A President can't do any of these things as the committee system that the USFA currently works under wouldn't allow it.

If I become President, would I discontinue supporting my kids? No, but that doesn't mean that I would cheat for them. Would a coach not advocate for their students? Would a referee not advocate for their position? So we all have a conflict of interest. Perhaps if we can get the CEO of General Electric to run for president, he wouldn't have a conflict of interest.

So, if we eliminate everyone who has a conflict of interest, we wouldn't have any candidates.

I can name scores and scores of USFA members who would not have the same degree of conflict of interest that Ms. Hurley would suffer as president. I might even be able to name members who would have no conflict of interest--even though doing so would be wholly academic, as these member have not expressed interest in the office.

No more eloquent illustration of the need for a nonfencer, outsider president cannot be advanced than Ms. Hurley's dismissive and handwaving response to Mo's question. As this will not happen in this election cycle, I would suggest supporting the NC slate and then insisting that they reorganize in this fashion.

As an aside, a promise not to cheat is one of those things that is normally understood without having to be stated. If it happens that it is stated, then I suppose I have to go on to wonder about how that candidate's private amibitions impinge on their campaign amibitions.

[T]

I've been reading bylaws a lot recently (we're working on new ones for our division) so after I had read your note, I pulled up the USFA's bylaws.

I'm not convinced that the answer is customer service, I think rather that it's a failure to maintain focus. Notice from the list that is the stated purpose of the USFA, that there are only 5 items that directly deal with competitions, and one of those is to set the rules for competitions. so far, most of the talk has centered around "how to fix the NACs", or how to improve competitions for elite/non-elite fencers.

Now I'm not so naive to believe that every item in the list of purposes has equal weight, but it seems to me that the USFA has ignored the majority in service to just a few. And from the discussions, it's not successful there (promoting competitions, preparing competitors for major international events, etc.). This leads me to believe that it's more than a customer service failure, it's a failure to fully embrace all the facets of the organization's purpose.

So, my question to you, Dr. Hurley, is what do you see can or should be done? Can the USFA effectively do anything other than "Run major events & prepare Olympic Athletes"? Should it? How can the national office embrace the original organizational purposes?

Thanks for pointing out the official purpose. I have also noted them before. Some of these statements sound like someone was writing a grant and thought of every benefit that could ever accrue to and as a benefit from fencing. 8 of the statements involve programs aimed primarily at the local level. At this point in time, the USFA has done relatively little to help clubs develop and support local programs. Elsewhere in this thread, I have advocated for the development of programs that local clubs could take advantage of if they choose to do so. The idea of a 'franchised' programs that have specific criteria and have been shown to be successful is something that I think many clubs would be interested in. Although franchise is not quite the correct word in that the programs could be modified at the local level to fit with the club's goals, facilities, etc.

Another issue that the purpose brings up is the relationship with collegiate fencing. This has been nonexistent and elsewhere in this thread, I discussed the issue of a pipeline program designed to facilitate the transition of junior fencers into college and developing programs designed to facilitate senior fencers out of college back into national/international fencing.

The other major issue that I have also advocated for is the need to increase the social opportunities at national fencing competitions. Of course, this is dependent on the events ending at a reasonable hour. There is no reason that there can not be some type of social activities on Sat night for the weekend competitions or several different events during our 10 day extravaganza during the summer. Usually, any type of social component that is added (such as the Hall of Fame dinner) is usually held while the competition is still ongoing thereby limiting the number of people who could attend. It is also advertised somewhat as an elitist event so the average fencer is not too interested in it. In France and Germany, there are usually grand parties just before/during and after the finals of world cup events. Why can't we do this? This means having food, drinks, and a production for the finals. We could offset the expense by charging a bit extra for entry fees or by having a silent auction, or by any number of methods. How can we expect any non-fencers, promoters, TV stations, etc. to come to our finals if the fencers don't even come (and we love the sport)? This might not happen for every final event but it could be included for a few of them.

The promotion of the sport has also been discussed before and this is of course, an important issue for fundraising for the sport.

Disseminating knowledge about the art/sport of fencing is also something that I have mentioned before. One thing I hear from parents over and over again are questions about how their child can attend international events, make world teams, what camps are focused on, travel/logistical items in terms of travel, what equipment to buy and the list goes on in this area. I am a firm believer that we need to develop membership benefits to attract parents to be members. Whether this includes conference-type seminars at summer nationals or JOs about the international competition arena or other info (I'm sure there are plenty of parents of beginner/novice fencers who could benefit greatly from information sharing/knowledge dissemination). We fall short of this purpose in a big way. A simple series of seminars would greatly reduce the burden of office staff on many levels and provide at least one motivation for parents to join. A similar type of series (a different set of topics, perhaps) could also be promoted to the Div 2/3 and veteran fencers. Most of the info they get is second hand or one-sided. So these types of programs are a win/win situation.

So, in my discussion elsewhere in this thread (and I know it's long) I have discussed most of these issues. When I was referring to customer service, I was placing most of these 'purpose' items in the domain of customer and member services. It may have been a broad sweep but nonetheless, it provides a simple model to work from. All of these purposes are aimed at serving our customers/members in whatever capacity.

[T]

This thread has been productive on many accounts. It has, however, gotten long and difficult to follow. This will be my last comment to this thread. If you have additional questions to ask, or if you have unanswered questions on this thread, or perhaps other issues that you would like to discuss in a constructive way, I would be more than happy to discuss them on our webpage/blog www.usfencersforchange.com

I look forward to 'seeing' you there.

[Inquartata]

Overall, I think he has done a good job. The changes that you are referring to (which I assume are foil) were voted on by the Congress. Roch didn't enact them all by himself.

Foil is the tip of the iceberg. You don't even mention sabre, which I think is telling.

Visor masks: Removed a significant portion of the sabre target area in the vain pursuit of a will-o' the wisp known as "spectator appeal". This is M. Roch's baby. Somehow he has gotten the idea into his head that essentials of the sport can be changed in the sole interest of people who do not fence. And he clings tenaciously to it despite the fact that it has not achieved any of his objectives, eg television coverage and more money flowing into fencing. And let's not forget the precipitate dismissal of the safety
concerns---unlike mesh, the Lexan cannot be tested at weapons control.

Lockout timing: Took away a good deal of what little remained of the old parry-riposte game that remained in sabre.

Blades: Stiffened to epee-like proportions ( M. Roch was an epeeist, what a surprise! ), resulting in a number of frightening penetration injuries...which you probably don't even know about, since they occurred in sabre. Right?

Colors and patterns on masks: Fencing uniforms, remember? More pandering to "spectator appeal".

Yes, he's just covered himself in glory.

Then there are his political practices: Stacking the deck with all the little federations which are dependent on his largesse and so support him in anything he wishes to do, and give him an invincible majority. "Congress voted", indeed! A rubber stamp of His Majesty's whims!

As far as your elite vs. non elite comment, the FIE, by definition, deals with elite athletes.

Yes, but as USFA President you will not. By definition, the elites are a minority of US fencers. As I said, you will have to represent the interests of ALL of us. That includes sabre and foil fencers, and above all those thousands of us atop the Div I and Junior points lists. Are you prepared to do this? And in what concrete ways?

NC slate has no international experience at all (in any weapon) and the NC president candidate never fenced (except what looks like maybe a PE class in college).

Why does this matter so much to you?

I mean, I like my officers to be fencers, too. But I cannot see any reason why they should necessarily have "international experience" ( which seems to me to be code for "an elite fencer"...which leads me back to wondering where your main focus will be again ).

[ivlobane]

It's sick that the word "elite fencer" is being made into some sort of insult. Much like the word "liberal" was made into an insult during the 2004 US elections.
All humans want to enjoy liberty. All elite fencers were an unwashed mass at one point in time. Enough with the FUD please.

[Inquartata]

That was not my intent. It is the favoring of or focusing on elite fencers as a class which I decry...

I would love to be in that number, and I have the greatest respect for those with the dedication and ability to get there. I just don't see why it's a qualification for adminitrative service, and I don't see why it should garner disproportionate attention FROM those in administative service.