Cobra Super - What did everyone think?

[seltzerwater]

I think the point is without that integration the initial seeding is completely opaque for most tournaments.

You're hijacking the thread here. This is about the fact that the correct parameters were not used in seeding a Super tournament. This is not about using the software correctly.

The fencers with National Points would not have been randomized.

[KD5MDK]

No. But the fencers of equal classification without points should have been randomized. For the Cobra SYC I can prove they weren't by linking to an initial seed list list this:
http://askfred.net/Results/roundResu...event_id=22064

For the Kentucky SYC, which is reported in this thread to have just as bad seeding, I can't prove that or anything else about the initial seeding because that information is not available. I would have to print out the competitors list, cut it up, determine who has points or classifications and who is equal and sort it out by hand. That's 2 pains in the rear and a half.

Using the new version of Fencing Time with its intermediate results information like initial seeding and seeding after pools makes it much easier to document errors in seeding and tournament organization, which is very much related to the topic of this thread.

[cfd784]

also, on page 7-2 in the USFA 2006 Operations Manual, there is a table outlining seeding.

[FoilParent]

Can someone explain to me what "Protected" means when you are in the top ranks fencers going into a Nac.

thanks

[seltzerwater]

A few of you have mentioned 'fencing time' software. Is that the only known way to seed the pools ?


I know we are all trying to figure out what 'box' was checked or unchecked in fencing time software, or if the software was used properly but that really isn't the issue here. Cobra did not follow the SYC seeding principle rules enclosed in the SYC packet. That much is obvious.


Maybe someone from Cobra Club can explain what happened?

And who is the YDC(Youth Development Committee?) and how do you reach out to them? Aside from the NAC and SN, the Supers are the most important event for youth fencers. For those kids with with national points not to be seeded - there really is no excuse for it.

[oiuyt]

And who is the YDC(Youth Development Committee?) and how do you reach out to them?

http://www.usfaryc.org/Contacts.html

-B

[passata_sotto]

A few of you have mentioned 'fencing time' software. Is that the only known way to seed the pools ?


I know we are all trying to figure out what 'box' was checked or unchecked in fencing time software, or if the software was used properly but that really isn't the issue here. Cobra did not follow the SYC seeding principle rules enclosed in the SYC packet. That much is obvious.


Maybe someone from Cobra Club can explain what happened?

And who is the YDC(Youth Development Committee?) and how do you reach out to them? Aside from the NAC and SN, the Supers are the most important event for youth fencers. For those kids with with national points not to be seeded - there really is no excuse for it.

What event did your son (or daughter) compete in because when I glanced at the y12mf on Sunday, before my son fenced, that event was seeded according to the SYC bid package?

[DJ Apostrophe]

also, on page 7-2 in the USFA 2006 Operations Manual, there is a table outlining seeding.

This chart is very similar to the one in the Athlete handbook, unfortunately neither mention SYC events.

Can someone explain to me what "Protected" means when you are in the top ranks fencers going into a Nac.

thanks

Protected means that these fencers can not be moved from pool to pool for any reason (including avoiding club conflicts), for instance, last year at Summer Nationals in Div1WF the Sarkisova cousins (who fence for the same club) ended up in the same pool and there was nothing we could do about it. One of them came up and questioned it, but as both were in the top X (32/24, whatever it was) neither could be moved from that pool. Anyone else who may have ended up in that pool from that club (provided they were outside the top X) would have been moved to avoid the club conflict. The term "Protected" refers to the seeding... the seeding can not be changed for any reason.

A few of you have mentioned 'fencing time' software. Is that the only known way to seed the pools ?


I know we are all trying to figure out what 'box' was checked or unchecked in fencing time software, or if the software was used properly but that really isn't the issue here. Cobra did not follow the SYC seeding principle rules enclosed in the SYC packet. That much is obvious.


Maybe someone from Cobra Club can explain what happened?

And who is the YDC(Youth Development Committee?) and how do you reach out to them? Aside from the NAC and SN, the Supers are the most important event for youth fencers. For those kids with with national points not to be seeded - there really is no excuse for it.

For our SYC event last year, I used Engarde to run the events. Engarde is EXTREMELY flexible for running events, but is not as user friendly as Fencing Time. The Fencer Code field lets me move people around to match the seeding criteria. We were thinking of using Fencing Time to run the event this year, askFRED integration for results and use of a projector were the main drivers... however, I'll have to experiment with the software to make sure I can seed the events correctly... Running the tournament correctly is paramount. Additionally XSeed could be used to run these events correctly, but that software is a bear to get set up and running.

-w

[DJ Apostrophe]

What event did your son (or daughter) compete in because when I glanced at the y12mf on Sunday, before my son fenced, that event was seeded according to the SYC bid package?

It looks like they seeded all the points list people ahead of everyone else, but the rest of the fencers are listed alphabetically... based on discussion in this thread, that's how FT would have treated them when creating the pools... that is incorrect...

Also, I just noticed in the event you mentioned (y12mf) they used pools of 5??? Why did they do that? I'm assuming it was a time thing... but if I was a parent and I spent the amount of money an SYC charges for my kid to get 4 pool bouts , I'd be disappointed...

That said, the ops manual reads:

Format
The format for the SYC events will be one round of pools with 100% promoted to a
direct elimination table.
• Seeding will be posted prior to the posting of the pools.
• Seeding must be based on the following factors in this order.
• National Rolling Point Standing
• Classification and year
• If athlete has neither National Points nor a weapon classification they will be
seeded on a random basis with the other athletes in the same situation.
• Pools will be posted for all athletes to see.
• All events must use pools of 6 & 7 whenever possible.
• Pools of equal size are preferable to those of unequal size. (i.e. with 20 entries, 4
pools of 5 would be better than 2 pools of 7 and one pool of 6.)
• Round results will be posted at least 5 minutes prior to the posting of the DE table.

Reading that... particularly the two lines I bolded, I'm not sure which bullet would take precedence in a 65 person event... but I generally err on the side of more fencing for the fencers...

-w

[oso97]

The take-home message from this is of course one that any person who is involved in IT in any way shape or form could tell you: Software is a tool, not the master. Put it another way - Garbage In, Garbage Out. How about this: FencingTime doesn't mis-seed people, people mis-seed people!

Any piece of reasonable tournament software (including cards and paper) can be used to run a tournament properly. Any of them can also be used to mis-run a tournament. It all depends upon the people using it - its just that some will let you screw up in fantastic ways and others will let you screw up in different, equally spectacular ways. And if you think REFEREES are in short supply these days, take a look if you will at how many people there are out there with any sort of certification to run Bout Committee. There is only one level of certification - competent to work without someone hanging over your head at the National level on the platform. The lack of any additional sort of certification, codified training process or even a user manual is glaringly obvious.

Tournament Committee - are you listening? Bout Committee Chairs - are you listening? The long term solution to problems like this is NOT "Bring one of us to run this for you." The long term solution is to organize, codify and train. I know there are tools out there - I've seen them used. Checklists, planning tools, etc. Those need to be distributed, in an organized fashion. Otherwise problems like this will only multiply...

[journalmom]

A few of you have mentioned 'fencing time' software. Is that the only known way to seed the pools ?


I know we are all trying to figure out what 'box' was checked or unchecked in fencing time software, or if the software was used properly but that really isn't the issue here. Cobra did not follow the SYC seeding principle rules enclosed in the SYC packet. That much is obvious.


Maybe someone from Cobra Club can explain what happened?

You probably received this e-mail too but I received this e-mail today. I intend to respond. May be you should too.

Dear Fencing Parent,

We would like to thank you for attending the Cobra Super Youth Circuit event this weekend. We would greatly appreciate your feedback. We are always striving to provide the best possible tournament experience for the competitors and their families. Please send your comments to:

Super.regional@gmail.com

Thank you very much for your cooperation.


Sincerely,

Cobra Super Youth Tournament Committee




Regardless of the peculiarity of the the seeding, SYC at Cobra was run by a very dedicated group of people and a very respectable coach Steve Kaplan. I don't think they intentionally skewed the seeding. May be it was the computer software, may be it wasn't. I'm sure they can explain more clearly what happened.

Would my daughter have fenced better in the DE if the seeding was different? May be.
Would she have felt more confident going into DE if she won more bouts in the POOL? May be.
Would she have met someone other than her own club mate if the outcome was different after the POOL? May be.
Will she continue to compete and enjoy the sport even if this SYC seeding was skewed? Absolutely.

There are a lot of may be's here. But the bottom line is... she enjoyed fencing at the tournament and she learned something from it. I told her if she's a solid consistent fencer, the initial seeding shouldn't make a difference. She'll lose to the ones she should lose to and beat the ones she should.

[Mo]

Seeding to me seems like a way to stack a deck of cards. For pools there does need to be a mix of strong and not as strong fencers but after the pools anything can happen.
In World Cup events, on any given day, most anything can happen. The better the fencers are the closer the competition will be.
Sometimes you will get in a bracket where you can wipe the floor with people due to your personal fencing style. Other times you will get a list of fencers that have so much potential to take you out.
Dealing with that is part of the game.
Learn it early.
THe Momster

[peet]

Just a thought regarding the alphabetical thing:

If the fencers with no other seeding differentiation (all the same rating, no points, etc.) were seeded alphabetically, that would actually be pretty random with regard to their skill level. (There's no correlation between earlier last initials and better fencers is there? if there is, I'm screwed!)

Now, of course, if multiple tournaments used the alphabet to seed, Aaron Aardberg's gonna have an advantage over time, but if it accidentally happened once?

-p

[oiuyt]

I could even see an arguement that it's slightly better than random seeding.

Family members of strong fencers tend to be of above-average strength. Those fencers will seed close to each other alphabetically and therefore be more likely to end up spread into different pools, helping balance the relative strength of the pools more then pure random chance would. And that's true whether it's the Abbington family or the Zorberts.

That said, it's still not the appropriate mechanism.

-B

[mfp]

Alphabetical order of equally classified fencers is certainly not the appropriate way to leave the seeding, however it's not as terrible as some might fear. Often there will be enough club conflicts to scramble things somewhat.

When I investigated an event that had 40+ foil fencers in it most of whom are Us, I saw that the resulting pool construction was far more influenced by resolving club conflicts than the alphabetical order. Still, I wished the operator clicked randomize.

[berghouse]

Seeding to me seems like a way to stack a deck of cards. For pools there does need to be a mix of strong and not as strong fencers but after the pools anything can happen.
In World Cup events, on any given day, most anything can happen. The better the fencers are the closer the competition will be.
Sometimes you will get in a bracket where you can wipe the floor with people due to your personal fencing style. Other times you will get a list of fencers that have so much potential to take you out.
Dealing with that is part of the game.
Learn it early.
THe Momster

The Momster gives an interesting and accurate appraisal of seeding at high levels. The same thing exists in youth fencing for a different reason. Youth fencers see amazing jumps in ability in a short time. At at the Sacramento NAC in 2006, three of the best Y10 mens foilists were in the same pool. Those fencers had just not fenced in enough points events to have some measurable criteria for seeding. The pools were randomly seeded but the pools were not balanced. There is a lot of luck involved.

As this is the weapon that I am familiar with, the correct Cobra seedings should have been thus:

Y12MF

1. Mageras
2. Gou
3. Holley
4. McGuire
5. Whittle
6. Ahn, Bin
7. Avendano
8. Petrie, Matthew
9. Endee
10. Ahn, Hyuk
11. Upbin
12. Masood
13. De Guzman

Pretty doggone close except for Avendano and Petrie. All others needed to be randomized.

Y14MF

1. Imboden
2. Falkowski
3. Moench
4. Ishizuka
5. Bergman
6. Woo, M
7. Tapai
8. Calimlim
9. Lee, Jus
10. Napoli
11. Mageras (Last fencer with Y14 MF points)
12. Harwood
13. Findley
14. Avendano
15. Gou
After this would be ramdomized the D07's, then E08's, E07's and one E06.

This is quite a bit different.

When you look at the number of pools and number of seeded fencers, I do not see that there should have been any great injustice. Each of the top fencers had a pool. It is possible that the second seeded fencer in a pool may have been a little stronger than indicated by strict compliance with the SYC seeding protocols, but luck and fencing styles are far more telling.

When I mentioned that the KY SYC was also not seeded according to SYC protocol, it was not meant to be critical. I did a mock SYC seed before entering the event and saw that only two fencers were misplaced. If I had made an issue of this fact, the bout committee would have had to research the issue, make a determination (most likely without the ability to confirm with a Youth Fencing official) and waste 30 to 40 minutes of time for all the fencers families and the other events waiting to be fenced. I chose to remain silent.

I too was surprised that the pools were 5's & 6's.

I am glad that this thread has begun as now it seems that all of the SYC organizers should now be well aware of the fact that the SYC Bid Package has some special wrinkles.

Clearly the organizer of Pris de fer is on board with the wrinkles It will be intesting to see what happens in Houston and San Jose.

[KD5MDK]

Houston is aware of what is going on.

The Bid package says a YDC member or representative should be present at each SYC. Don't know what method the organizers of each event are using to meet that.

[fencerwallet]

At at the Sacramento NAC in 2006, three of the best Y10 mens foilists were in the same pool. Those fencers had just not fenced in enough points events to have some measurable criteria for seeding. The pools were randomly seeded but the pools were not balanced. There is a lot of luck involved.

This is Youth fencing. Last year at SN 3 kids in my son's pool made the top 16 in a Y12 event. I knew right when I first saw the intial pools that it was going to be tough. We parents who see most of the kids fence repeatedly probably could do a more balanced "subjective" seeding of all the kids, from No. 1 to No. 100. But, organizers don't have that luxury. How can organizers possibly seed kids "unknown" to them? Who cares, really (or, who should really care, all that much). Like I tell my son, "if you're gonna win, you have to beat them, anyway".