USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #1: Women’s Epee Program

[physicspackage]

I’ve got a specific question for both sides on a specific issue. I understand that the USFA has many issues to deal with, both large and small. Each one of us has issues that are important to us. As we wait on the ballets to arrive, I would like to ask each side what they plan to do about an issue that is important to me – the USFA Women’s Epee Program. Currently we have no national coach; it has been this way for some time now. When the last coach stepped down, from what I understand the Director of High Performance essentially took on the job of national coach, and a letter was posted about plans for the program. I don’t want to discuss the success or failure of this new structure in this thread.

• I want to know from each side, what do you plan on doing with the women’s epee program?
• Do you think the current structure is working and do you plan on continuing with it?
• Do you plan on naming a national coach?
• Or do you plan on a new structure? What would that structure be?
• If you plan on changing the current structure, what is your timeline?

[Nolano]

Marx was the most recent National Women's Epee coach, right?

[jjefferies]

I'm sure that there are people here who know all the details. But it would certainly help if you could give some background so that those of us who aren't in the know can follow the responses. Are your questions/concerns with regards to the upcoming Olympics or 2012? I'm guessing you are concerned with the upcoming. Could you fill us in on what has happened that the coach stepped down and hasn't been replaced. Is it Jim Carpenter, Director of High Performance , who has taken over? And why is this not acceptable/desirable. We can guess but it would be better to hear from you.

[T]

The woman's epee program has been run exceptionally poorly (yes, I'm sure people will think I am biased but the arguments strongly support this conclusion).

First a little history lesson.
In June 2003, Mike Marx, was fired as the National Coach for w.epee (no reason was given that I am aware of). This was a critical time period because it was at the beginning of the Olympic qualification season. Subsequently Kornel Udivary (sp?) was named the coach primarily because he had two of the top w.epee women in the country with Kamara James and Steffi Eim. That was fine. However between the change of coaches, an important team qualifier in Australia was not officially attended by a USA team (although a few individuals attended who were down the line in points but no coach was provided). This resulted in a very poor 'team' performance (few points were acquired as a result of this). At that point (July 2003) it became virtually impossible for the USA to qualify a w.epee team for the Olympics. The FIE team point standings require a certain number of events to be held in different zones therefore because there weren't too many team events held somewhere besides Europe, this meant that the event in Australia could not be dropped. They could not have picked a worse time to change coaches. Period.

Of course, no w.epee team qualified in 2004 (Canada qualified from this zone instead). At the Olympics, Kornel was treated so poorly that he quit and wrote a huge email to everyone on his email list. Gary Copeland was appointed interim w.epee coach around Sep 2004 and stayed in that position until Dec 2005 (all the while the High Perf Committee indicating they were interviewing people for a permanent coaching position). After an extended application/interview/decision process (1.5 years), in Jan 2006, Paul Pesthy was appointed the w.epee coach (Gary Copeland was treated quite poorly in the whole process by the HPC). Paul, however, had the track record of coaching two of the top w.epee athletes in the country (Kelley & Courtney) and Gary Copeland had no women near the top of the sr. ranking list (or junior, as Jasmine McGlade had moved to England).

Jim Page was soon hired as the Director of High Performance and announced that life would be getting better for w.epee and he said that it would become more stable. However, Jim Page (or the HPC - it is hard to tell who actually had the power to make decision) was interested in only junior and cadet fencers and felt that those that were true seniors (e.g., Maya Lawrence, Lacey Burt, and Lindsay Campbell) were not to be given any attention. Paul constantly fought hard for the true seniors to be included and to provide them funding but the HPC refused to approve a budget that included senior funding (camps and world cup trips). The powers within the HPC and possibly elsewhere on the Youth Committee (but that would only be reporting rumors on my part) wanted the budget to be spent almost exclusively on developmental programs. Paul refused and subsequently was fired in the Fall of 2006. Paul's argument was that the National Coach should be charged with developing the national team as it prepares for the Olympics and world championships and the developmental function should be the job of an assistant coach or co-coach (such as a couple of other weapons have).

In Jan 2007, due to a lack of direction in the w.epee program, I outlined the type of program that we have used with our girls which have produced significant results - both domestically and internationally. Jim Page told us that the ideas were favorably received but nothing resulted from it.

In late April/early May 2007, the USFA brought together a group of coaches that had youth/cadet/junior w.epee fencers in the ranking list. They brainstormed for several days (travel, food, lodging, stipend, etc., paid for by the USFA). They came up with a game plan for w.epee for the next season (which started in August 2007). Not one of those items went passed the conversation held last May. It was like the meeting never took place (although they produced a wonderful powerpoint presentation).

From approx Sep 2006 - June 2007, there was no National Coach for w.epee. In the summer of 2007, Jim Carpenter assumed the role of interim coach and soon was also named the Director of High Performance. The argument was that they wouldn't have to pay an extra person for the coaching position if Jim Carpenter is already getting paid as the Director of High Performance.

Jim Carpenter is a nice guy and I like him personally but he is not happy as the Director of High Performance (I don't think I am saying anything that he hasn't already said to many people). At this point, the position is a thank-less job thanks, in a large part, to the HPC who are constantly looking for people to throw under the bus when their decisions go bad. As nice as Jim Carpenter is, he has very limited experience in international w.epee. He has little team experience or even experience coaching individuals at that level. The last couple of years, for w.epee, has been a constant struggle to get direction in terms of fielding a team at world cup events and finding someone who knows enough about team events to do even an adequate job (which goes beyond flipping a coin to decide who gets the 'up' or 'down' side).

Essentially, there has been little if any attempt to provide a coordinated effort in terms of youth, cadet and junior development camps, etc. much less an attempt to look toward London 2012 for a coordinated team effort. There has been little support for any true seniors.

The w.epee program has a great deal of promise and I will address the steps that I would recommend in a later post.

[teacup]

To the best of my knowledge, for this season, unlike the other squads, no funding was given to junior or cadet women's epee fencers for developmental purposes. (Performance money was given and I have no knowledge of senior developmental funding.)

The reason I heard was that after Paul Pesthy left, the USOC asked for a proposal from the USFA stating the direction and plans of the women's epee program. Apparently none was presented and therefore the USOC stopped their funding.

Therefore since the USFA did not receive any funding from the USOC specifically for women's epee, the WE program has less funding than the other weapon squads.

Tracy, or anyone else, could you confirm if this correct or have I misunderstood the situation?

Also what is the funding situation for the 2008 - 09 season?

[T]

Originally Posted by teacup

To the best of my knowledge, for this season, unlike the other squads, no funding was given to junior or cadet women's epee fencers for developmental purposes. (Performance money was given and I have no knowledge of senior developmental funding.)

The reason I heard was that after Paul Pesthy left, the USOC asked for a proposal from the USFA stating the direction and plans of the women's epee program. Apparently none was presented and therefore the USOC stopped their funding.

Therefore since the USFA did not receive any funding from the USOC specifically for women's epee, the WE program has less funding than the other weapon squads.

Tracy, or anyone else, could you confirm if this correct or have I misunderstood the situation?

Also what is the fuding situation for the 2008 - 09 season?

That is what I heard as well. Since there was no one in charge of w.epee, no plan was presented, and consequently the USOC did not fund much if anything. In 2007, the USOC, however, funded Kelley & Courtney with a personal grant for funding to Olympic qualifying events.

No information has been presented about the 2008-09 funding. I do not expect anything major to change. The USOC (via the HPC) want to see performance before they fund a budget. However, they don't fully understand that top epee fencers in general, and w.epee fencers in particular, are usually over 30 years old. The average age of the top 10 w.epee fencers on the FIE list is 31 years old. The HPC/USOC's current philosophy is that if you are 23 and don't have significant international results yet, you are not a worthwhile investment. The USOC has this philosophy because that is what the HPC/USFA feeds them.

We can hope that Kelley's results at the jr world championships, Courtney's jr world ranking and results at jr world cups, as well as the jr team victory turn a few heads that promote more programs for w.epee.

We have long had the philosophy that if you raise the level of fencing for everyone, then Kelley & Courtney will get better. We have followed that philosophy by holding free camps for w.epee on numerous occasions while housing 10 -12 girls in our house for week-long and weekend camps. We did this and did not charge a dime because we believe in this philosophy. It is not a coincidence that Texas girls rank highly in w.epee in the point standings.

The fact that Kelley & Courtney have had significant results does not change this philosophy. They need quality bouts now more than ever and it is awfully expensive to get those quality bouts in Europe every season. We tried to get Jim Page and the HPC to institutionalize this model but instead, they provided several arguments as to why it could/would never work.

The lack of attention to w.epee has widened the gap between the Hurley girls and the others (a gap that was closing before 2007, in part because of our efforts). There is no more evidence needed other than the latest Div 1 National finals. Now as we turn our attention toward London 2012, we start to get more concerned about the direction w.epee will take.

[physicspackage]

I take it that Tracy is not happy with the current state of the Women’s epee program. Does anyone from the NC slate have any input? I asked the questions in the OP with an open mind and a desire to hear what both sides have to say.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by physicspackage

I take it that Tracy is not happy with the current state of the Women’s epee program. Does anyone from the NC slate have any input? I asked the questions in the OP with an open mind and a desire to hear what both sides have to say.

Well, in all fairness, I don't think anyone is happy with the current state of the Women's Epee program.

[KD5MDK]

I'd think it's more accurate to say nobody is happy with the HPC in general, not just Women's Epee. As you follow T's chronology, you can see it's the HPC screwing things up, and I don't think that's restricted to just the one program.

[T]

The HPC, especially in w.epee, has been a major problem from biased decisions such as selecting team or designated coaches to the lack of appointment of a national coach and the development of any type of cohesive program. One huge issue is the lack of communication on the part of the HPC.

In 2007, as I said in an earlier post, I submitted a proposal for a w.epee program that outlines specific management and training items. I have attached it here. These are the types of programs that the USFA needs to institutionalize to better develop regional successes that feed into national and international success.

The first order of business is to appoint (what is now called) a High Performance Director that has experience in developing programs that revolve around team success. This is not only for w.epee but for all teams. The USFA must put more time and effort into the team process. While success in all weapons may not be prescribed using the same specific training strategies, there are common elements that each weapon can utilize that work on team training, motivation, bouting, and management concepts.

The recent success of the w.epee team at the Jr. World Championships was not a fluke (and I agree with an email that was forwarded to me that states this). That email was correct. It was the result of hard work alright but not necessarily by the person taking the credit. Everyone else can decide who are the most likely contributors to the bulk of that success. Just keep in mind that a team coach is more than someone who is designated to flip the coin at the beginning of the match.

If you are interested in seeing the proposal that I gave to Jim Page about a year and a half ago, it is attached.

Have Fun.

[KD5MDK]

Just to verify, as I read the proposal you're replacing the concept of the National Coach with an Athlete Manager, the High Performance Director and the fencer's individual coaches? Or is this in conjunction with a National Coach who will concentrate on team success?

[T]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Just to verify, as I read the proposal you're replacing the concept of the National Coach with an Athlete Manager, the High Performance Director and the fencer's individual coaches? Or is this in conjunction with a National Coach who will concentrate on team success?

That's a good point. The National Coach will be responsible for coordinating both the Developmental and Elite programs (i.e., as part of the Pipeline program that I have discussed before) and will be directly responsible for coordinating activities for the Elite athletes and team preparation. So this proposal does not eliminate the National Coach system, it provides them with oversight responsibilities for development (which will be directly the responsibility of the Committee of Four and the Regional Directors) and direct responsibility for the Elite athletes. Keep in mind that unless the US adopts a true team strategy the idea of a National 'coach' is a misnomer. It would not be likely that a National Coach in New Jersey, for instance, will have (or should have) a sizeable effect on individual fencers skills and strategies that live in Texas or California or Minnesota or where ever. If the team members are brought together to truly train as a team, that is a whole other idea that definitely requires a National Coach in the true sense of the word.

I should make one qualifying point about this proposal. Its original purpose was to address the needs and provide direction for a developmental program that would feed into an elite program. At the time, the USOC was most interested in this perspective (because they felt the true seniors were not a worthwhile investment). The focus of the plan is primarily developmental in nature with the idea that eventual London Olympic team members would emerge from the developmental ranks. This was the perspective that Jim Page wanted to see so that is the perspective this proposal takes. It does not directly address training an elite team for London although there would be similarities.

[KD5MDK]

I have a personal adversion to committees with even numbers of members just from the risk of deadlock, but that's surely something that could be worked out.

Could you clarify what kind of range of numbers you're looking at for evaluating how many people would vote for the parent and coach members of the Committee of Four? Would coaches (or parents?) get one vote per Athlete they had in that group, or just one vote?

Is there a split in the participation between Juniors, Cadets, etc (such as Top 16 Juniors, top 8 Cadets) or is it exclusively by (Senior or Junior) status?

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I have a personal adversion to committees with even numbers of members just from the risk of deadlock, but that's surely something that could be worked out.

from the document;

"Together this committee will oversee the program's direction and the committee members will act as consultants to the Athlete Manager who is responsible for program implementation and achieving program objectives."

.....which would indicate that the AM has three and a half votes (?).

I would see more of a problem finding an AM who all parties (and there are many beyond the other three committee members) could agree on as an honest broker.

Being "in the pipeline" would appear to be a prerequisite for getting a shot at the team - given the training opportunities associated.

[Greg_D]

I am posting the following response on behalf of Ro Sobalvaro.

Greg

___________________________________

As a member of both the nominated slate and the National Women’s Epee coaching staff, I am able to reply to the question on the W. E. programs plans. I am a former National Coach of Women’s Epee and a coaching staff member since 1992, and have a rather long view of the history of the weapon.

The current season has posed some challenges, relating in part to structure and staffing, and in part to funding issues that stem from the way funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee (the major funding source for our international programs) is structured.

The season’s funding problems have two primary causes -
1.) Women’s epee does not have a team event in Beijing. The USOC is now carefully stating how the funds may be allocated. The weapons squads with team events were given the vast majority of the money. Women’s Sabre with two medals from Athens, a senior world champion and a top seeded team was justifiably given a lion’s share. Women’s Foil, also with some notable senior success, was well funded as was Mens Sabre for similar reasons and Men’s Epee with a team event in Beijing was given a reasonable amount. Men’s foil actually fared worse than W.E. with considerable hardship for that weapon.

2.) Unfortunately, Junior and Cadet results count for very little in terms of the USOC funding decisions. We have an astounding amount of talent in the US Women’s Epee program, but to date the majority of our significant results have been in Junior and Cadet events. Epeeists have long competitive life spans and a major challenge for our program is to keep these athletes involved and translate their Junior and Cadet careers into successful senior careers. The best thing that could happen to our program is a great result from Kelly in Beijing—that would likely translate directly into greater interest and funding from the USOC for the next quadrennial’s Women’s Epee program.

In terms of staffing and structure, there are a number of variables that are at work, not the least of which is the need to select a new Executive Director. However, we cannot wait until the search is completed and an individual hired to fill this position to examine the structure of the Director of High Performance and National Coach for Women’s Epee. While recognizing the need to have a National Coach to be focused solely on Women’s Epee we need to begin planning now for London in 2012, and for the development of the athlete pool for 2016 and 2020.

At this time, Jim Carpenter is the acting Women’s Epee Coach and is very focused on the planning for the next quadrennial. The Women’s Epee national staff plan to use a coaching staff approach that is similar to the other weapons: utilizing the National Coach as general senior coach, and naming a National Junior Coach to focus on junior and cadet athletes. There will be a lot of crossover between the senior program and the junior/cadet programs, as the majority of our successful athletes are quite young. In addition to these two positions, a number of successful coaches will comprise a National Women’s Epee Coaching Staff to lead team trips, discuss development issues, formulate long term policy, organize and staff camps and create a truly national program of development within the weapon.

I can give you a rough outline of current plans and goals for next season.

Camps – We are working now on solidifying a camp schedule for next season. The schedule needs to be in place by August so that athletes and coaches are able to incorporate the schedule into their training plans for next season.

We have been invited to hold a camp in France prior to the European Cadet Series event, and the Germans are working with us to hold a camp at the Heidenheim training center between the Cadet Series event there and the Junior World Cup in Tauberischofsheim. We are looking at the feasibility of these two offers both of which are very inviting. We plan to hold a minimum of two national camps and to organize a series of weekend regional camps aimed at broader development for Women’s Epee. To be cost effective, these camps will need to be held at dedicated fencing facilities used by clubs that can provide some housing to athletes and coaches.

Youth Program – Youth development is critical to our long term success. We will work with regional coaches to increase the number of athletes in Women’s epee events in 12s and 14s. The larger the talent pool we have going forward, the better our odds. Regional camps can be used to get these young athletes a larger number of appropriate bouts, and to increase their interaction with each other and their dedication to the weapon. We will actively contact and work with the coaches developing these young athletes, asking them to help develop a National youth program specifically for Women’s Epee. The RYC/SYC program can be tied in and used to provide more competitive bouts for these young fencers.

Cadets Program - We plan to use the European Cadet Series to increase the number of international bouts available to our very competitive cadet fencers. The size and strength, as well as the formats used in this series, can provide very valuable international competitive experience. In combination with the NACs, national and regional camps will provide increased development opportunities to our up and coming national and international level fencers. U. S. Cadet fencers have been dominant in many European competitions. We need to increase the number of bouts available to them to continue this trend and carry it forward into the junior program.

Junior program - The unprecedented success of the Junior team at Junior World Championships provides momentum and increased focus on international competition and the further development of the age groups abilities in team competitions. To this end, national and regional camps will contain a strong team component. The possibility of team events at NACs is under discussion and the National staff supports the concept. In addition, at least one Senior Grand Prix will be designated a junior event, allowing us to field a junior team to gain experience in this critical area.

Senior program - we need to continue emphasis on Grand Prix events to develop our team for London. Four years is a small amount of time to prepare our top athletes to qualify a team to the Games. The USOC currently considers team of great importance, and a team medal is our highest priority for 2012. National and regional camps will be critical to continue the training of our talent pools. Personal coaches must be involved in the national program at all levels to provide training, educated opinions, technical expertise, professional season planning, tournament staffing and all other facets of our campaign towards London.

In addition to the programs already mentioned a formal program of development in Veteran Women’s Epee needs to be created for this growing pool of athletes.

I encourage everyone interested in Women’s Epee to talk to Jim or contact me so we can all begin to work together towards London and the 2016 and 2020 Games. The Junior individual and team golds at Junior Worlds last month need to be a trend—not an anomaly. The information above is just the beginning and the funding resources available to us are to dependent on the USOC. We will need creativity and a single focus of purpose to accomplish our goals.

Thank you,
Ro Sobalvarro

[epeemike81]

Thanks, Ro.

-m

[physicspackage]

I would like to thank both Tracy and Ro for the info.

[mgriffin]

[quote=T;685963]The woman's epee program has been run exceptionally poorly (yes, I'm sure people will think I am biased but the arguments strongly support this conclusion).

In late April/early May 2007, the USFA brought together a group of coaches that had youth/cadet/junior w.epee fencers in the ranking list. They brainstormed for several days (travel, food, lodging, stipend, etc., paid for by the USFA). They came up with a game plan for w.epee for the next season (which started in August 2007). Not one of those items went passed the conversation held last May. It was like the meeting never took place (although they produced a wonderful powerpoint presentation).
[quote=T;685963]

As a member of the group present in Colorado Springs at that meeting, I would like the part of the history lesson outlined above to reflect reality.

In March 2007, Donna Stone invited a group of coaches to meet at the OTC in Colorado Springs after the April NAC. We were there for 2 days right after the NAC (I flew in from Tucson as did a few other people), and some of the people there had to stay for other USFA meetings as well. We stayed at the OTC, which I realize costs money, but it certainly was not "travel, food, lodging" as implied above. If there were stipends to be had, I missed out. We were asked to spend two days to help make a presentation about the Women's Epee program to our USOC "sportfolio" people, and we did so.

We did produce a "wonderful Powerpoint presentation" (though I assume that is sarcasm) because that was the format we were asked to use. I was not compensated for my time, ideas, or participation. I am frustrated that the work that was started there went no further, though not as frustrated as I am by the post above, which seems to strike out at a group of coaches who tried to help out by giving of their time and expertise. T's post makes it sound as if we sat around some posh hotel for a week getting paid for "brainstorming" and designing PowerPoint screens. I would like to think that we were all there for the same reason, because we thought we could affect positive and constructive change for Women's Epee. That's why I spent those two days there instead of at my club with my fencers.

I understand T's frustration at how poorly Women's Epee has been run, but alienating more people, be they coaches, administrators, or former athletes, is not constructive. I wish the facts had been checked before this was posted.

Maureen Griffin

[hpfencing]

[quote=mgriffin;687375alienating more people, be they coaches, administrators, or former athletes, is not constructive. I
Maureen[/QUOTE]

I agree,

Everyone is bent on attacking and blaming instead of looking what we presently have and improving. The USFA needs LOTS of help as all organizations that are our size do. Maureen is a coach that is cut of the right cloth, trying to give/help and not trying to simply get a stipend to sit around or improve his "standing" in the fencing community

There are many resources that are put out with how they have been treated when they have busted their butts helping at the national level. It's sad that we cannot all work together instead of alway slamming each other. I think the best key to making any program work is informing everyone what is going on and keeping them informed. it seems that even people in the know don't always really know what is going on and that our left and right hand dont work well together in many cases.

Will the new officers to be elected be ble to fix all the problems? NO! Are both groups passionate about making the USFA better, YES! Hopefully the slamming and passing the buck will stop and everyone will work together to make the USFA a better place to fence.

[epeemike81]

Maureen,

T has posted quite a long history of the Women's Epee program... Do you agree with all the other parts of that history, or are there aspects of it that you see differently. I only ask because I know that sometimes different people with different perspectives might perceive events (and especially the causes behind those events) differently.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

-m