Cadet Designated Events vs Regional Cadet Circuit

[teacup]

The suggestion is that we build a SECOND domestic circuit, have the events run by local organizers, and then include the results in our national points standings. I'm afraid I don't see the benefit.-B

Another benefit of a domestic regional cadet circuit would be to give those who start fencing at ages 14, 15 and 16, those too old for Y14 SYC's, more stronger single gender age appropriate tournaments without extensive national or international travel. Currently, not all regions have strong single gender cadet or event junior events. Although these fencers may be old enough to fence in opens, cadet events would be better developmentally.

Not all fencers start when they are seven or eight. Those who start later may not rise to an elite level, but some might especially if they were previously strong athletes in other sports and besides isn't one of goals of the USFA to promote and encourage the growth of fencing?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


As I have read it, some goals have been bandied about. These include, but are maybe not limited to:

1. The USFA should not pay excessive money for refs abroad
2. Young fencers should not have their national standing based on too many competitions
3. The ranking system should not provied undue advantage to weakly talented fencers with rich parents, over fencers with the opposite characteristics.
4. The domestic competition scene should not be drained of the best Us. fencers.


May I propose a system:
1. The USFA pays for 0, 1, or at most 2 refs based on the domestic strength of those US. fencers who have signed up for the competition at hand. The total sum of domestic ranking points decides the number of refs - under some sum, no refs, over another sum, 2 refs. If the point sum is in between, one ref is paid for. However, only fencers who previously have reached the DE stage in an international competition are accounted for in the point sum calculation.
2. Any number of US fencers may sign up and go to international competitions, provided that they are accepted by the competition organizers. However, the fencers must pay for all excess refs needed in addition to those paid for according to #1. Exempt from the ref payment are US. fencer which are among the top-3 US fencers and (have reached L32 OR have won at least 3 DE bouts).
3. Domestic ranking, for those placed #5 or lower, is based solely on domestic competitions and International championships above the Panamerican games level. For those who reach top-4 based on purely domestic points, the placement among the top-4 is based on weighted sums of domestic points and international points, as it is done today.

This system limits USFA costs. The really good US fencers get it somewhat easier moneywise. Weak fencers are discouraged from going abroad and getting smashed in events which are too hard for them, but they can do so if they pay their own way - the whole way.

Seems like a system which would not have great disadvantages to anyone. Now it is up to you to poke holes in it!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[fdad]

Hi!


As I have read it, some goals have been bandied about. These include, but are maybe not limited to:

1. The USFA should not pay excessive money for refs abroad
2. Young fencers should not have their national standing based on too many competitions
3. The ranking system should not provied undue advantage to weakly talented fencers with rich parents, over fencers with the opposite characteristics.
4. The domestic competition scene should not be drained of the best Us. fencers.


May I propose a system:
1. The USFA pays for 0, 1, or at most 2 refs based on the domestic strength of those US. fencers who have signed up for the competition at hand. The total sum of domestic ranking points decides the number of refs - under some sum, no refs, over another sum, 2 refs. If the point sum is in between, one ref is paid for. However, only fencers who previously have reached the DE stage in an international competition are accounted for in the point sum calculation.
2. Any number of US fencers may sign up and go to international competitions, provided that they are accepted by the competition organizers. However, the fencers must pay for all excess refs needed in addition to those paid for according to #1. Exempt from the ref payment are US. fencer which are among the top-3 US fencers and (have reached L32 OR have won at least 3 DE bouts).
3. Domestic ranking, for those placed #5 or lower, is based solely on domestic competitions and International championships above the Panamerican games level. For those who reach top-4 based on purely domestic points, the placement among the top-4 is based on weighted sums of domestic points and international points, as it is done today.

This system limits USFA costs. The really good US fencers get it somewhat easier moneywise. Weak fencers are discouraged from going abroad and getting smashed in events which are too hard for them, but they can do so if they pay their own way - the whole way.

Seems like a system which would not have great disadvantages to anyone. Now it is up to you to poke holes in it!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

First, let me suggest you send this and your other proposals directly to USFA and FIE, they are in need of as much help as they can get. Second, explain to them how your scheme reduces the cost of travel for fencers.

[happy]

If the problem is too many Americans in a weak European circuit event (e.g. Goteborg WE) or imbalance between different designated events (Heidenheim vs. Goteborg) the solution lies in how and which European events receive designation, not in the scrapping of the international designation system and creation of a new system of domestic events, which at best have the same fencers we already serve through the NACs.
-B

FYI - they just posted the registered fencers for the Goteborg event this weekend - 126 fencers for Cadet WE:

http://www.vigor-challenge.se/eng/anmalda.asp#eccwomen

[teacup]

FYI - they just posted the registered fencers for the Goteborg event this weekend - 126 fencers for Cadet WE:

http://www.vigor-challenge.se/eng/anmalda.asp#eccwomen

For the cadet events, this is definitely an increased number of fencers from prior years but as many have pointed out the sheer size of an event doesn't necessary determine a strong tournament.

The JWE could be a strength factor of 1.4 and the JME could be 1.52 which is about the same as last year.

Just as an experiment, using the Junior strength factor formula but substituting the ECC rankings the strength factors could be approximately as follows:

CWE 1.4
CME .88

[telkanuru]

Hi!


TL;DR


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

New forum rule:

If Peter wants to propose a new system, he has to be able to explain the concept in no more than 5 sentences...

[Jason]

New forum rule:

If Peter wants to propose a new system, he has to be able to explain the concept in no more than 5 sentences...

Seconded.

[downunder]

I'll be there for the USA this weekend in Gothenburg. Booked a supercheap Ryanair flight so I'm saving you guys a fortune.

[teacup]

I'll be there for the USA this weekend in Gothenburg. Booked a supercheap Ryanair flight so I'm saving you guys a fortune.

I am really glad you will be there and am also grateful that you will be saving the USFA money but does anyone know if there will be any US referees there to support US international ref development?

The USFA is collecting $5,400.00 from the fencers in ref fees. In addition to this money collected, isn't some money budgeted for referees when international events are designated?

[downunder]

I think Amgad is there... not sure. I'll let you know when I get there on Saturday.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

New forum rule:

If Peter wants to propose a new system, he has to be able to explain the concept in no more than 5 sentences...

I am going to take it that you are dead serious.

Before taking it to Craig/Gav, I might point out that you have the priviledge to block me, and in any case Inq (among others) can also post mighty long epistles.


Peter Gustafsson

[downunder]

Hi!




I am going to take it that you are dead serious.

Before taking it to Craig/Gav, I might point out that you have the priviledge to block me, and in any case Inq (among others) can also post mighty long epistles.


Peter Gustafsson

That was only two! Radical improvements

[oiuyt]

While we're on the topic, Goteborg results:

JWE (149 entered):
13. Grace Neveu
14. Ashley Severson
17. Susannah Scanlan
24. Katherine Holmes
31. Francesca Bassa
35. Nik-Nik Ameli
36. Phoebe Caldwell
49. Hannah Safford
67. Emily D'Agostino
75. Neely Branfield-Harvey
118. Sarah Collins
142. Natalie Gegan

CWE (125 entered):
3. Ashley Severson
5. Grace Neveu
7. Sarah Collins
11. Katherine Holmes
15. Elizabeth Donnenberg
31. Nicole Ameli
35. Jessica O'Neill
36. Juleah Nusz
40. Katherine English
41. Emma Peterson
56. Laney Caldwell
56. Mason Speta
60. Natalie Gegan
70. Marietta Tung
74. May Peterson
75. Camille Gallardo
76. Anne Stephenson
99. Anabel Young

[downunder]

Amgad and Donald were there, as well as me and a GBR referee fulfilling the USA's required referees for the mens/womans cadet/junior events hat were on each day.