Cobra Super - What did everyone think?

[seltzerwater]

Can someone explain how Supers are seeded? Does each Super have the final say on how to seed their tournament? At the Cobra Super in New Jersey this week-end the boys foil and epee pools were very lop-sided. Some pools were nothing but heavy-weights(experienced fencers) and others were pools of beginner fencers. I know this does happen on occasion but then I heard other fencers in other age event categories saying the same thing. Can anyone comment?

[DJ Apostrophe]

Can someone explain how Supers are seeded? Does each Super have the final say on how to seed their tournament? At the Cobra Super in New Jersey this week-end the boys foil and epee pools were very lop-sided. Some pools were nothing but heavy-weights(experienced fencers) and others were pools of beginner fencers. I know this does happen on occasion but then I heard other fencers in other age event categories saying the same thing. Can anyone comment?

I wasn't there so I can't say how it was done, but seeding is specified in the Athlete's handbook...

For a national competition (which SYCs are generally considered to be) the criteria is as follows (applies only to youth events):

Top X on the points list protected (12 for Y-14 8 for Y-12 and 4 for Y-10)
Then points within classification
then classification and year
random after that.

-w

[journalmom]

According to the RYC handbook,

" Seeding - Initial seeding at regional events can be problematic.
Those with national points or ratings can be seeded as per NAC
protocols. Most fencers will not have classifications or national
points. Entry forms should include a number of years fenced in
addition to rating and national points. Coaches can be asked to
rank groups of fencers from the same club."

But in the Y14 WF category, the first 20 were ranked per their rating and national points. Then the next 35 fencers were alphabetical, and then the last two were just added. I know one of the last two came in 8th, receiving her "E" rating. My daughter's POOL was VERY strong with three girls who were clearly very experienced and the other two were average. So, I agree with you. I don't know how SYC and RYC are seeded for the POOL.

[DJ Apostrophe]

According to the RYC handbook,

" Seeding - Initial seeding at regional events can be problematic.
Those with national points or ratings can be seeded as per NAC
protocols. Most fencers will not have classifications or national
points. Entry forms should include a number of years fenced in
addition to rating and national points. Coaches can be asked to
rank groups of fencers from the same club."

Please note, this is for RYCs, NOT SYCs... Two totally different beasts. RYCs are more developmental events, whereas SYCs are a higher level of competition, i.e. the next step.

But in the Y14 WF category, the first 20 were ranked per their rating and national points. Then the next 35 fencers were alphabetical, and then the last two were just added. I know one of the last two came in 8th, receiving her "E" rating. My daughter's POOL was VERY strong with three girls who were clearly very experienced and the other two were average. So, I agree with you. I don't know how SYC and RYC are seeded for the POOL.

If that's how they seeded it... why didn't anyone protest the seeding???

As for how it should be seeded, see my above post (or the Athlete's handbook which will tell you the same thing).

-w

[passata_sotto]

Seeding for SYCs only is done by points first. I, too, thought it was done by points, then points within ratings as at NACs and other USFA events but at the KY SYC Jack Berghouse showed me, in the bid package that goes out for all those interested in hosting an SYC, that for the SYCs it is done uniquely.

We enjoyed the tournament and thought it was very well run although the refs ran from excellent to questionable.

The food was great and reasonably priced and the facility was good.

We are definitely planning on returning next year for some great competitive youth fencing.

[DJ Apostrophe]

3. Seeding for all Super Youth Circuit events must be based on the following factors
in this order:
a. Current National Rolling Point Standings in for the age group and weapon
(found on the US Fencing website at www.usfencing.org).
b. For fencers who are not on the Current National Point Standings,
classification and year in the weapon.
c. Athletes who have neither National Points nor a weapon classification for
an event will be seeded on a random basis after the athletes who are
seeded by those factors.

Seeing this, I'll seed the events that way for our events coming up.

Personally, I A: find it odd that SYC's would have 'special' seeding criteria and B: it wouldn't be included in the Athlete's handbook.

-w

[seltzerwater]

But in the Y14 WF category, the first 20 were ranked per their rating and national points. Then the next 35 fencers were alphabetical, and then the last two were just added. I know one of the last two came in 8th, receiving her "E" rating. My daughter's POOL was VERY strong with three girls who were clearly very experienced and the other two were average. So, I agree with you. I don't know how SYC and RYC are seeded for the POOL.

And I did ask about seeding... I was told it was classification only and no national points were involved at all. (And they were correct because clearly there were boys who had national points and they were lumped in with the rest of the unseeded fencers.)

Could that be the reason why the pools were skewed?

[DJ Apostrophe]

Yep... I think that would be a HUGE reason pools looked a bit funny...

-w

[KD5MDK]

And I did ask about seeding... I was told it was classification only and no national points were involved at all. (And they were correct because clearly there were boys who had national points and they were lumped in with the rest of the unseeded fencers.)

Could that be the reason why the pools were skewed?

Who was BCC for that Super?

[seltzerwater]

And I did ask about seeding... I was told it was classification only and no national points were involved at all. (And they were correct because clearly there were boys who had national points and they were lumped in with the rest of the unseeded fencers.)

Could that be the reason why the pools were skewed?

It should have read: And I did ask about seeding... I was told it was classification only and no national points were involved at all. (And that was exactly how the initial seeding list shook out. Clearly there were boys who were on their respective national points list and they were lumped in with the rest of the unseeded fencers.)

I originally used the word 'correct' & I don't want anyone to think I was saying that it was 'correct' what the bout committee at the Cobra Super did.

This is upsetting to find out about this. We were affected by the improper seeding as many other fencers were. Is it too late to do anything about it?

[DJ Apostrophe]

This is upsetting to find out about this. We were affected by the improper seeding as many other fencers were. Is it too late to do anything about it?

Sadly, it is too late to do anything about it this year... as best as you can do would be to send your feedback to the YDC so that they can take corrective action and prevent it from happening again in the future.

-w

[oiuyt]

This is upsetting to find out about this. We were affected by the improper seeding as many other fencers were. Is it too late to do anything about it?

That depends on one's definition of "do anything about it?".

Is it too late to do anything that will affect the outcome of the tournament and points earned? Almost certainly.

Is it too late to bring attention to minimize the risk of it happening again? No.

Is it too late to bring attention that will be taken into account as the Youth tournament structure is reviewed and possibly reworked? No.

Send your concerns along to the YDC. They will, presumably, pass them along to the newly-announced youth task force and to the incoming YDC members (once determined).

-B

[mfp]

But in the Y14 WF category, the first 20 were ranked per their rating and national points. Then the next 35 fencers were alphabetical, and then the last two were just added.

It looks like the new version of Fencing Time was probably used to run the events and the results got posted taking advantage of a new feature of the integration between Fencing Time and FRED-- you can see the seedings used both before and after the pool rounds. It's very, very cool. Wicked cool.

I've also noticed using Fencing Time that Unclassified fencers can end up getting seeded alphabetically unless the user takes care to enable Fencing Time's" option to randomly seed fencers of equal classification. If the user simply enables that option, the seeding won't look quite as "strange" when you have an event with lots of Us for example.

[oiuyt]

I've also noticed using Fencing Time that Unclassified fencers can end up getting seeded alphabetically unless the user takes care to enable Fencing Time's" option to randomly seed fencers of equal classification.

That's not the default behavior? If people with FT experience can confirm that, perhaps a suggestion to Dan would be in order.

-B

[seltzerwater]

It looks like the new version of Fencing Time was probably used to run the events and the results got posted taking advantage of a new feature of the integration between Fencing Time and FRED-- you can see the seedings used both before and after the pool rounds. It's very, very cool. Wicked cool.

I dont know how you can say it is 'wicked cool'. Seeding before the pool rounds were incorrect so that distorts the pools which in effect distorts the tournament and eventually distorts the national point standings.

Fencers with National points were not seeded at all. That is the issue.

[KD5MDK]

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

[berghouse]

Seeding for SYCs only is done by points first. I, too, thought it was done by points, then points within ratings as at NACs and other USFA events but at the KY SYC Jack Berghouse showed me, in the bid package that goes out for all those interested in hosting an SYC, that for the SYCs it is done uniquely.

We enjoyed the tournament and thought it was very well run although the refs ran from excellent to questionable.

The food was great and reasonably priced and the facility was good.

We are definitely planning on returning next year for some great competitive youth fencing.

I am the Jack Berghouse referred to in Passata Soto's reply.

Last year I did a bit of research and found three possible seeding critera for Youth events. First the RYC hand book, second the USFA hand book and third the SYC bid package. Being somewhat confused, I emailed Maureen Griffin, the Youth Chair. She responded to me that the seeding protocol was "as stated in the SYC Bid Package." This years bid package was not changed, in reference to seeding, so I assume that this information is still good.

I am now going to expand this post into an area that I have viewed with great interest but have not previously responded to, as it ties right in with the SYC seeding protocol. There are some youth fencers out there that have ratings that they do not deserve. Those ratings were achieved by underage fencers in open events. By seeding using national points as the first criteria, this problem is avoided.

I have had some extended discussions with Passata Soto concering the issue of underage fencers in open events as well as seeding protocols. Frankly, I have taken the approach that if it did not effect my youth fencer directly, I was not going to complain. Passata Soto and I are in similar fact situations in that we both took officer positions in our local divisions and have tried to get up to speed on some of the rules. As new officers we were taking with a fresh look at the rules as they exist today. Our understanding of the rules was not based upon something that we learned, and liked, from 10 years ago.

I spoke to several very experenced fencer authorities and raised the issue of the underage fencers. No one seemed to have a clear idea of how to resolve the issue. I also got the impression that the long time vetern fencing authorities did not have that much interest in youth fencing. I also did a little research on Askfred and determined that there were two types of ratings errors, isolated/random and patterns. I then read every post on fencering.net concerning ratings to youth fencers.

The prominent fencing veterns who are choosing to ignore the rules (those with "patterns" of improper ratings given) know who they are and a little research can quickly reveal who they are. As someone new to the sport, it is my opinion that those individuals (less than a hadfull in the entire USFA) are doing their sport a disservice by refusing to follow the rules of the sport that they passionately love ( I assume that they are passionate as they are successful and prominent).

In the division that I am in, CENCAL, all of our division events require the fencer to show his/her USFA card. We also have on hand the most recent Thursday update of membership from the USFA (Thank you USFA for this very update and accurate tool). We have also started using Askfred as a prescreening tool. Using these tools, it is very difficult to make a mistake on age. Last year a mistake was made, discovered, the person earing the rating received an explanation, graciously understood and the rating was removed.

Back to SYC seeding protocols. I have also observed that ratings increases in open events can at some times be very random or luck based. I do not see this in ratings earned by youth fencers in youth events. The C1 classification minimum means that most youth fencers earn their ratings in highly competative and well attended youth events. An excellent youth fencer at the KY SYC had good national points. He had only an E rating but is much better than this. The KY SYC did not use the SYC Bid Package seeding protocol (I am not being critical of them as my research indicates most SYC organizers are not aware of this different wrinkle. The excellent fencer was seeded below and put into a pool with a person who had a higher rating (as shown on Askfred but not confirmed on the USFA Membership listing) but not as many national points. The fencer with the higher national points throughly dominated the higher rated fencer. At the end of the event the youth fencer with more points got a highly deserved, and earned by fencing other youth fencers, rating increase.

Given my back ground in bureacracy, administration and application of law, it was my experience that if someone did not like a rule, they worked within the system to change the rule. Individuals did not choose to ignore rules and assume that based upon their well earned reputations they must know better and anyway did not fear any repercussions or punishment. Shame on you indivduals who have a "pattern" of violation of the underage fencer's rule. I have looked at the results of youth fencer's who have suspect ratings and it really has not done them much good. So for a brief semi-advantage these youth fencers are being taught that its okay to break a "silly rule." My highly competative and highly ranked youth fencer, (directly affected by the youth fencer "ban") who in the last five years has fenced almost every quality fencer subject to the ban, would confirm my analysis of the inflated rating being of no use. He actually has laughed out loud at some of the ratings achieved by youth fencers (including youth fencer's who legally obtained the ratings increases) at adult events. Youth ratings achieved by youth fencers at youth events are much more indicitive of that fencers abilities against other youth fencers. You can not even make a claim that it is the right of American's to exercise civil disobediance and purposely break bad laws and thereafter accept the punisment for breaking those laws. As far as I can tell there has been no punishment for breaking the youth fencer in open events ban.

Maybe it is silly of me to suggest this, but it seems that the sport of fencing seems to have an ideal of fair play and honor. As it seems unlikely that any USFA punishment will attach to the "pattern" abuses it seems that they will only be subject to ridicule and disprespect by those who choose to follow the rules. Naive, but accurate. Some of the "pattern" abusers are readers and posters on this website. I have no doubt that they may either laugh at my post or be indignant. I can live with that.

[mfp]

I dont know how you can say it is 'wicked cool'. Seeding before the pool rounds were incorrect so that distorts the pools which in effect distorts the tournament and eventually distorts the national point standings.

What KD5MDK said.

[mfp]

That's not the default behavior? If people with FT experience can confirm that, perhaps a suggestion to Dan would be in order.

It doesn't default to randomize as far as I can tell -- the user needs to click on the "Randomize Equal Ratings" UI button when viewing the seeding or starting the event.

A person familiar with running events would see the seeding, click the button and not think anything further of it. That might be why I and other Beta testers didn't notice. I didn't notice the (seemingly default) alphabetical behavior until a club member we were training didn't click it and seeded an event that way.

I agree that the UI for randomization should perhaps at least warn the user if they didn't use it and it's on my list of items for Dan that I've noticed since the Beta ended.

[dberke]

It doesn't default to randomize as far as I can tell -- the user needs to click on the "Randomize Equal Ratings" UI button when viewing the seeding or starting the event.

A person familiar with running events would see the seeding, click the button and not think anything further of it. That might be why I and other Beta testers didn't notice. I didn't notice the (seemingly default) alphabetical behavior until a club member we were training didn't click it and seeded an event that way.

I agree that the UI for randomization should perhaps at least warn the user if they didn't use it and it's on my list of items for Dan that I've noticed since the Beta ended.

The new version of FT requires that you manually randomize fencers of equal rating. This can be done in any one of three places - on the add/remove fencer form, on the seed order form, or on the initial seeding form.

The reason this isn't done automatically has to do with preserving the seedings that may have been set based on some external criteria. I had many complaints where someone would order the fencers within a rating by their relative strength (based on knowledge of the skill levels of everyone present) and if you exited out of the seeding and added another fencer, the randomization would destroy the work already done. As a result, I added the "reseed fencers when done" option on the add/remove form to let people choose if they wanted that done or not. Maybe the best solution would be to have that checkbox default to true (reseed) rather than not.

Dan