Cadet Designated Events vs Regional Cadet Circuit

[teacup]

Which is better developmentally to send our fencers to Europe for the weekend or establishing a domestic cadet circuit similar to the SYC system or European Cadet Circuit?

Cadet designated events are held by local organizers in other countries. There are no selection guidelines, standards or strength factors. They can range from large two day tournaments with 200 - 400 fencers with four sets of pools and repechage to small local tournaments with 50 fencers from three or four countries. Some have great refs and check equipment while others have young fencers for refs and don't even check masks.

Not all cadet designated events are equivalent in strength to either each other or domestic cadet events yet the winner of an international cadet event earns 700 points vs the winner of a US domestic cadet event earns 400 points. Those making 32 are awarded more points than those who place similarly domestically. There are no strength factor calculations.

Currently any WF/WE fencer who has fenced in a Y14/Cadet NAC born 1992 or later* is eligible to fence in cadet designated events. An unlimited number of WF/WE, 12 ME/MS/WS, 16 MF fencers can attend. Often 20 or more Americans fly to Europe for the weekend to fence each other. (20 US fencers plus 50 or 70 local fencers can mean two Americans in every pool and one or more US vs US DE's.)

Just because an event is in Europe does it automatically mean it is of higher calibre, stronger or better run than a domestic event is or could be? If there are no standards or equivalency factors for international cadet events compared either to each other or domestic events, why couldn't points be awarded at strong regional cadet circuit events?

Offering more stronger domestic events would lesson the disadvantage of those fencers who can't afford to fly to Europe for the weekend. In the long run, hopefully it would raise the level of US fencers. After all, Europeans don't fly their fencers here for the weekend. For that matter, we could fly a dozen or so of the top European cadet fencers to our national events for less money than it costs to send 20 fencers plus coaches, referees and chaperones to Europe, and then even more US cadets would get the chance to fence Europeans.

*the under 13 rule does not apply. These are not FIE events.

[notalent]

How many events would your circut have? I believe that we have 2 international events at at the cadet level. This means the top tier cadet goes to NAC A B C D F and JO and SN. plus 2 cadet events and up to 7 Jr events internationaly. Some of the top go to Sr WC. Im not sure where the weekends can be found to add to this.

[fdad]

How many events would your circut have? I believe that we have 2 international events at at the cadet level. This means the top tier cadet goes to NAC A B C D F and JO and SN. plus 2 cadet events and up to 7 Jr events internationaly. Some of the top go to Sr WC. Im not sure where the weekends can be found to add to this.

In Cadet Womens Foil there were 4 designated european events this year, and 10 Junior World Cups. The first cadet event conflicted with NAC A so most of the top fencers went to Europe instead. The top Cadets also happen to be, for the most part, the top Juniors and Seniors. So they are very busy shuttling to and from Europe while attempting to miss as few days of school as possible.

I don't think the proposal is to ADD a cadet circuit to that schedule, but to instead REPLACE part of the European travel requirement with a North American alternative. This would help to make sure that the team is not composed of only the wealthiest fencers. While an argument could be made that participation in the European events ensures that team members are measured against the type of opponents that they are likely to face at the world championships, this seems to be mitigated by the fact that the top 8 at these European events is typically filled with American fencers.

[oiuyt]

We currently HAVE a domestic cadet circuit.

NAC A, NAC B, JO's, Summer Nationals.

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.

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.

Creation of a circuit of sub-NAC cadet events would be a reasonable continuation of the path we've been taking with the YDC system and now the NOCs. It might be able to offer a qualification path for cadets, but I don't see how it could offer significant points towards the standings in the near future. Certainly not as a replacement for super-NAC level events.

-B

[fdad]

We currently HAVE a domestic cadet circuit.

NAC A, NAC B, JO's, Summer Nationals.

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.

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.

Creation of a circuit of sub-NAC cadet events would be a reasonable continuation of the path we've been taking with the YDC system and now the NOCs. It might be able to offer a qualification path for cadets, but I don't see how it could offer significant points towards the standings in the near future. Certainly not as a replacement for super-NAC level events.

-B

As you point out, we have national cadet events, but participation in those will not provide enough points for a fencer to make the world team. The benefit would be to reduce the cost associated with attempting to make the world team. A nice side effect would be stronger cadet level events available to the less fortunate (since most of the better cadets need to go to Europe every weekend, local events are weaker due to their absence).

[notalent]

In Cadet Womens Foil there were 4 designated european events this year, and 10 Junior World Cups. The first cadet event conflicted with NAC A so most of the top fencers went to Europe instead. The top Cadets also happen to be, for the most part, the top Juniors and Seniors. So they are very busy shuttling to and from Europe while attempting to miss as few days of school as possible.

I don't think the proposal is to ADD a cadet circuit to that schedule, but to instead REPLACE part of the European travel requirement with a North American alternative. This would help to make sure that the team is not composed of only the wealthiest fencers. While an argument could be made that participation in the European events ensures that team members are measured against the type of opponents that they are likely to face at the world championships, this seems to be mitigated by the fact that the top 8 at these European events is typically filled with American fencers.

Replacing the Euro events would have some unitended consequences for refferee development. This is where we send our prospective international refs. However I would think that replacing some of the events wouldnt be a bad thing.

[teacup]

Replacing the Euro events would have some unitended consequences for refferee development. This is where we send our prospective international refs. However I would think that replacing some of the events wouldnt be a bad thing.

I am totally supportive of ref development but is designating all of these local foreign cadet events doing that? These are not FIE events. There are still lots of Jr. and Sr. World Cups to send refs for training.

I don't know about the other squads but for the WE cadet events refs were hired from England to save money. This isn't helping development of US refs.

Besides, does the USFA have enough money to send an increased number of refs to an increased number of events? Isn't the USFA discussing paying fines rather than sending refs? How is this helping ref development? Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the number of events, not pay fines and send US refs to strong international events?

This season the USFA INCREASED the number of international events for both men's and women's epee team selection. In comparison some European teams reduced the number of their designated events.

And you are correct, I am not suggesting eliminating all international events just reducing the number, or at least those that are weak international events, and replacing them with strong events here which would help develop and benefit all fencers, including those who are good athletes but less wealthy.

[teacup]

We currently HAVE a domestic cadet circuit.

NAC A, NAC B, JO's, Summer Nationals. -B

But the US does not have strong regional cadet circuit events.

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

The benefit is the same as those of a regional super youth circuit. It reduces the amount of travel and therefore benefits those fencers who may be good athletes but have limited financial resources and time. The USFA could insist upon certain standards and requirements which would create more consistency between these designated events. Currently the USFA has no requirements of organizers of designated cadet events hosted by foreign clubs. This lack of consistency contributes to the great disparity amongst these designated events.

There are other options that could be considered for the development of US cadet fencers such as two day cadet events with the four pool/repechage format used by France and Germany. These events have proven very successful for European cadets.

The current system for awarding points and team selection is not necessarily perfect, is there a reason the system couldn’t be revamped or at least reassessed?

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

I never suggested scrapping international events but the USFA appears to be moving in the direction of increasing participation in the European Cadet Circuit rather than developing a strong cadet program in the US that would benefit the greatest number of US athletes. Are financial conditions of both the USFA and fencers being considered in the development of the cadet program? Because it appears that the future of these programs is occurring with little if any discussion from the main source of funding, the parents. SYC's are proving to be profitable for US clubs, wouldn't development of Cadet SYC's also prove profitable thus helping US club owners and coaches financially? At the same time increasing international events and referee obligations cannot be beneficial to the bottom line of the USFA.

(If the numbers of US fencers keep increasing will the Europeans continue to be so welcoming?)

The strongest Cadet fencers are still eligible to attend Jr and even Sr World Cups. The designation of three or more weak cadet tournaments per weapon is a relatively new addition to the cadet team selection criteria. The problem is given the choice between a strong Jr. WC cup or a weak cadet event most fencers will choose the weak event for the possibility of greater points. Is this really helping develop cadet fencers or rewarding those with the financial means to travel?

As for the imbalance of weak tournaments and different formats, this is not only relevant to WE. Check out the results for recent cadet events for WF and MF.

Cadet MF Warsaw
http://www.mat-fencing.com/Mask2009/...index_pol.html

Cadet WF Salzburg
http://fechten-salzburg.at/

Creation of a circuit of sub-NAC cadet events would be a reasonable continuation of the path we've been taking with the YDC system and now the NOCs. It might be able to offer a qualification path for cadets, but I don't see how it could offer significant points towards the standings in the near future. Certainly not as a replacement for super-NAC level events.

-B

I am afraid I do not understand this comment. Not sure what you mean by a replacement for super-NAC level events. Are you suggesting that international cadet events are super NAC levels because I would argue some are below par NAC's?

[gladius]

Cadet designated events are held by local organizers in other countries. There are no selection guidelines, standards or strength factors...

Not all cadet designated events are equivalent in strength to either each other or domestic cadet events yet the winner of an international cadet event earns 700 US points vs the winner of a US domestic event earning 600 points. Those making 32 are awarded more points than those who place similarly domestically...

Currently any WF/WE fencer who has fenced in a Y14/Cadet NAC born 1992 or later* is eligible to fence in cadet designated events. An unlimited number of WF/WE, 12 ME/MS/WS, 16 MF fencers can attend. Often 20 or more Americans fly to Europe for the weekend to fence each other...

I am totally supportive of ref development but is designating all of these local cadet events doing that? These are not FIE events. There are still lots of Jr. and Sr. World Cups to send refs for training...

Besides, does the USFA have enough money to send an increased number of refs to an increased number of events? Isn't the USFA discussing paying fines rather than sending refs? How is this helping ref development? Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the number of events, not pay fines and send US refs to strong international events?

This season the USFA INCREASED the number of international events for both men's and women's epee team selection. In comparison some European teams reduced the number of their designated events.

teacup raises some very important points concerning the elite program or HPP as it is now and as it has evolved in recent years.

If the people in charge who have made these plans were also responsible for the financial costs of their decisions, without even entering the technical merit and soundness of any of their decisions, none of them would ever pass. But since they decide and the parents or the fencers are those who pay, and they have acted with no "adult" supervision, things have evolved to the current level of absurdity.

Of the 6 weapon programs, WS has been a unique situation due to the extraordinary talent of very young[*] athletes we have had in the past 8 years and their coaching talent. We were the source of envy and admiration the world over for the depth and the breadth of our women (actually I should say girls) saber fencers. In a system (USFA) which has never had the fortune of such extraordinary crop of young athletes and coaches (only Italy with the WF is comparable) such a situation was bound to create two problems:

1. How to properly and effectively manage this extraordinary pool of talent also from the longevity point of view, given that our system is not Italy or France or some other country with government supported sport programs, and
2. How to repeat such singular success with the other 5 weapon programs.

My conclusion is that the USFA failed (so far) to seriously address both problems.

We are not where we were a year or two ago while at the same time our international competitors are not sleeping. Without entering in personal situations I am not familiar with, I can safely state that any serious national federation with the fortune to have a phenomenal young athlete like Rebecca Ward would have a serious problem in explaining how, at the "ripe" age of 19, she retired from a sport where Valentina Vezzali, arguably the "best" fencer in modern times, continues to train and work towards London 2012 at the age of 34.

Our systems are different and so are our opportunities but from the competitive sport of fencing point of view--which should be the primary concern of the USFA and the USOC--dropping the ball on an athlete like Becca Ward would cause many heads to roll in other national federations and the national press would have a field day as to the whys and the hows.

The second problem of how to reproduce the success of WS with other weapon programs is what has caused many of the issues addressed by the OP.

Take the case of WF. In the cadet/junior selection process of who was eligible to compete abroad, WF was the only program without any restriction. The other weapons you had to be at above a certain position in the national rankings. WF has had also a crop of athletes of distinction in international competitions, but not at the level of WS. Ditto for MS and all other weapons.

This past summer, in the vacuum during the transition between the two USFA administrations (even though one VP is still the same in both), several ill advised decisions were made by a group of people involved with the competitive weapon programs which have lead to the current absurd situation that we send 20+ fencers to more than one, third-rate local cadet tournament in Europe, where they end up fencing each other 5,000 miles away from home to determine who will have the honor and the onus to represent the USA in the cadet and junior world championships in Belfast in April.

Women's epee has always been the Cinderella of the weapon programs (no national coach for most of the quadrennial) and the temporary people who have assumed the position of WE national coaches (Jim, Ro and Maureen) decided on their own to

• (a) adopt the WF "open" policy as far as eligibility to these competitions, and
• (b) increase the number of international designated events to ultimately qualify for the national team.

When questioned, repeatedly, as to the wisdom of this policy they refused to enter any discussion with the parties concerned.

Without money and time constraints one may benefit by having more rather than less exposure competing internationally, as long as the athlete has a certain basic preparation. We are in a world where these two constraints, plus common sense, should put the brakes on the enthusiasm of dedicated, but ultimately incompetent people running the weapon programs, but this isn't our case.

The issues of effectiveness, of the cost/benefits ratio must always be considered. No national coach employed by any successful fencing federation would make a plan or plans like what we have at the moment, in particular in the present economic situation. All national federations have reduced the number of qualifying competitions abroad (France, Italy, Germany, just to say a few, for cadet and junior programs, but also for seniors) and they cut the number of athletes supported financially by the federation who can go to these events. The USFA is the only one who has increased the number of qualifying competitions abroad and opened the floodgates to let people in with more disposable income than talent to compete.

I believe that all the problems mentioned by the OP can be reduced to the fact that these programs were not put through a serious analysis and revision, that the people currently in charge have always refused any dialog with the base or with other interested parties, and that they have not bothered to study consult or even ask the opinion of others who have run consistently successful competitive programs.

In other words a most unfortunate combination of arrogance and incompetence and taking advantage of the fact that no "adult" was at the helm.

Hopefully now things will change.

[*] A brief comment about the age issue of fencers competing.

Anyone that spends some time with experts in the field and analyzes the historical results and trends will conclude that fencing is not gymnastics as to the age of peak performance of a top athlete. Fencers reach their top potential past 25 years of age all the way into the mid thirties. Everywhere is so, except here in US. In fact right now in Europe there is a push to promote an intermediate category, Under 23, to allow the maturity of Under 20 fencers to develop slowly before entering the senior ranks and competitions.

We have a situation that makes it almost impossible to fence at a highly competitive international level past college graduation, or at the most few years after college. Our system does not provide (in my opinion thankfully so) for the livelihood of fencers in their 20s or 30s nor offers them a package with benefits for life upon retirement from active competition. Our system though pushes young, too young fencers to emerge and compete way too soon, and since the competitions are in Europe, it forces the families of young fencers to invest incredible amounts of money, time, and resources in the hope of getting an Olympic medal, 99.99% of them will never even get closer to than a TV screen.

It is wrong both practically and ethically to push too young fencers (and their naive parents) to travel abroad and compete at insignificant cadet events (not recognized by the FIE) just to brag that we have a precocious "national team member" with the shooting stars on their britches. The FIE and the IOC have clear rules as to the minimum age of athletes competing (13 on January 1). To circumvent these rules on the part of some irresponsible individuals with the collusion of uninformed parents, and for the USFA not to sanction (punish) such infractions is irresponsible and wrong for the future of fencing in US.

No serious national federation would ever allow this to happen. Quite to the contrary, they often limit--strictly--the chance and the number of their top cadet and junior athletes to compete in the older age category.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Very thoughtful post, Gladius. I'd rep you if I could...

The problem is finding the balance. I love the idea of a stronger, regular cadet circuit in addition to the NAC/JO opportunities, even if it is limited to a handful of training camps with an end of camp German-style multi-rounds-of-pools-before-the-DEs tournament. Anything to get them more intense training. I would suggest that the top half dozen in y-14 and maybe the top 2 in Y-12 also get invites to these camps, as well (if they've had success in Y14 or Cadet).

I'm not sure what to do about the international component. For the kids who will be competing on the US National Team, it's imperative that they get used to international travel, and begin diagnosing the learning curve for strength of competition overseas. For their parents, it's imperative that they begin to understand what their wallet looks like when subjected to a pernicious vacuum.

Perhaps part of the way to soften the results disparity between domestic and international cadet events is to only allow one international cadet event to count towards standings, and reduce the points awarded to the same 600 as at an NAC. If the cadets can compete and score points at the junior or senior level overseas, then they should get the full benefit of their accomplishments, because those are likely to be the kids competing on the National Team at the Worlds, anyway.

[KD5MDK]

My impression is that Modling was designated because it falls a week after Heidenheim, and most of the girls were going to spend the week in between them training at Tauber. That seems like a very worthwhile plan to me, even if it does come at the cost of designating a much weaker event.

[teacup]

My impression is that Modling was designated because it falls a week after Heidenheim, and most of the girls were going to spend the week in between them training at Tauber. That seems like a very worthwhile plan to me, even if it does come at the cost of designating a much weaker event.

There was a designated Jr. WC in Tauber the same day as Modling. Some fencers had to choose between the stronger Jr. WC or the weaker cadet event with the potential for more points.

A fencer placing 32 in the Jr WC which had a strength factor of 1.357 would earn 223.9 points. There were 119 fencers, 9 US fencers (7%) and 18 cadets (18%), fencers must be 13 years old.

A fencer placing 32 in the Modling Cadet, no strength factor, would earn 193 points. There were 90 fencers, 23 US fencers (26%), and 100% cadets, no minimum age.

Rather than staying at the Tauber Club for the Jr. WC, all chose to travel to the weaker tournament, either way they were staying in Europe after Heidenheim.

By the way, the training in Tauber was arranged by a parent not the USFA. Not everyone participated because some, not hearing about any plans from the USFA in a timely fashion, had made their own plans.

(When WE cadet team selection criteria was published in September all three of the cadet designated events could be counted for Group II points. On Dec. 9, the selection criteria was changed to best two out of three.)

But this thread is not just about WE and certain choices that were made for this season, thankfully this season is almost over. It is the direction that the USFA appears to be taking that is under discussion.

[teacup]

I'm not sure what to do about the international component. For the kids who will be competing on the US National Team, it's imperative that they get used to international travel, and begin diagnosing the learning curve for strength of competition overseas. For their parents, it's imperative that they begin to understand what their wallet looks like when subjected to a pernicious vacuum.

I have never stated that international travel is not valuable but there are great variances not only between designated international events but between what is best amongst the various squads. Men's epee is very different from Women's sabre both in size and strength, internationally and domestically. For various reasons sabre fencers seem to travel much more extensively while sometimes only four women's epee fencers attend junior world cups. What works for one squad may or may not be appropriate for all squads.

For example, the dates of designated international events vary amongst squads. Designated cadet sabre events are over by October while cadet epee designated events aren't over until February. JR WF events are over by November 30th, JR MS/WS are over by January 10th, but JR ME/MF/WE/MF aren't over until February 8th which for many college fencers is during the NCAA season and other college fencing meets. Therefore many junior fencers attending college are unable to attend these world cups or even JO's for that matter. For the last few years, placement in weak Montreal Jr WC and/or Sweden has been the determining factor for men's junior and cadet epee team selection and may be so again this year. (Could this be a reason why fencers on US teams keep getting younger?)

Please, I understand that these are personal choices but I am trying to get people to think why things are as they are and why certain choices are made.

If the USFA is heading in the direction of increasing international travel for cadet fencers, rather than developing a strong cadet youth program here, wouldn't the next logic step be to designate international events for Y14 fencers?

But then again why bother designating international events for Y14 WE/WF since they can go to them now? Europeans do not have the same cadet birth year restrictions. WE/WF fencers are eligible to fence in these events if they have fenced in a cadet or Y14 NAC. If a US Y14 1996/97 fencer has the time and money to travel across the country to attend multiple SYC's, why not fence in a weak European cadet event for the chance of cadet points?

I agree with Capt. Slo-mo that fencers should experience international travel but at what age, 11, 12, 13? Is this the direction the USFA is heading? And sure fencers and parents need to face the reality that fencing is expensive but do parents need to learn this lesson so early in their child's career? Which is better spending $3,000.00 for some easy points or $3,000.00 for lessons and/or camps?

And finally are US fencers going to meet the same high calibre fencers that they may potentially meet at worlds at small European local cadet events? Why not invite top level fencers here so that more US fencers get the opportunity to fence Europeans other than those with enough time and money to travel to Europe for the weekend?

Or maybe I have it wrong, maybe for some the goal is to be able to say that they fenced in what many inaccurately call a European Cadet "World Cup".

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I agree with Capt. Slo-mo that fencers should experience international travel but at what age, 11, 12, 13? Is this the direction the USFA is heading?

It's been a few years, but I distinctly remember being told no one from the US could go overseas, by FIE rules, until they met the "13 by Jan 1" benchmark, and this specifically included Cadet events in Konin and Godollo.

Now I wonder if these rules have been changed, or were just being grossly misprepresented back then.

Teacup, I agree: $3K spent on a handful of intensive domestic training camps is likely a better choice for most fencers than a single trip overseas to a weak Cadet event.

[teacup]

The European Cadet Circuit, other international and our domestic cadet events are not FIE events. The only FIE cadet events are the Cadet World Championships. (Go to the FIE site and search for cadet events.) Neither do fencers need FIE licences to participate. The FIE doesn't even issue licences to fencers under 13. There are European fencers under 13 participating in these events. I don't even think there are youth categories such as Y10, Y12 and Y14 in Europe or even Canada for that matter.

Using a link from the FIE website, the English translations of FIE rules are posted on the British Fencing website.
http://www.britishfencing.com/Britis...asp?PageID=613

Age of participants
o.55. 1. Apart from for the World Junior and Cadet Championships and the
competitions of the Junior World Cup, there is no maximum age
limit for competitors.
2. No fencer is allowed to take part in an official event of the FIE unless
he or she is at least 13 years old on 1 January in the year of the
competition.

There are fencers with 1996/97 birth years on the ECC Ranking Lists:
http://www.eurofencing.info/EfcEng/defaultE.htm

FIE licences:
http://fie.ch/Competitions/Fencers.aspx?type=Fencer

[teacup]

And how many events are necessary for cadet team selection?

For Cadet WF and WE there are 18 events which count towards team selection not counting any SR WC's or Worlds or the April NAC which many attend but does not count for team selection.

WF:
Group I
Four cadet domestic
Four junior domestic

Group II
Two Div I domestic
Four cadet designated
Four Jr WC's

That is a lot of traveling and missed school for fencers under 16, most accompanied by parents or personal coaches since the USFA provides little if no support.

(And again, please I realize people make choices.)

[Jason]

And how many events are necessary for cadet team selection?

For Cadet WF and WE there are 18 events which count towards team selection not counting any SR WC's or Worlds or the April NAC which many attend but does not count for team selection.

That's crazy. And a great way to keep Cadets from ever becoming Seniors.

[teacup]

That's crazy. And a great way to keep Cadets from ever becoming Seniors.

Then add for these kids all the dates for college entrance exams.......

[gladius]

... I don't even think there are youth categories such as Y10, Y12 and Y14 in Europe or even Canada for that matter.

teacup, all you have to do is to ask... and ye shall receive...

Wouldn't it be nice if the people in charge of the USFA elite HPP would abide by this motto?

If we consider just France and Italy, here is how they are organized.

FRANCE

9 age categories with 20 sub-categories. The categories younger than cadets have funny names instead of the Y-age labels we use (our system is much clearer to understand).

For this season (2008-09) here is how it goes:

YOB CATEGORY

2003 and after Moustiques

2002 Poussin 1
2001 Poussin 2
2000 Poussin 3

1999 Pupilles 1
1998 Pupilles 2

1997 Benjamins 1
1996 Benjamins 2

1995 Minimes 1
1994 Minimes 2

1993 Cadets 1
1992 Cadets 2

1991 Junior 1
1990 Junior 2
1989 Junior 3

<=1988 Seniors

09/1959-08/1969 Veterans 1
09/1949-08/1959 Veterans 2
<=09/1949 Veterans 3


ITALY

2008-09 season

7 main age categories with 11 subcategories. The Italians also use names for categories below cadets.

YOB CATEGORY

1998 Bambine/Maschietti (female/male)
1997 Giovanissime/Giovanissimi
1996 Ragazze/Ragazzi
1995-94 Allieve/Allievi

1993-92 Cadets

1991-89 Juniors

<=1988 Seniors

01/1970-12/1979 Veterans Category 0
01/1960-12/1969 Veterans Category 1
01/1950-12/1959 Veterans Category 2
<=1949 Veterans Category 3

The FIS has also started and promoted in the European Fencing Confederation a Under-23 category and championship.

The FIS supports promotional (not "competitive," every participants wins something) activities for little kids called Prime Lame (YOB 1999) and Play-Fencing for the very young (those born after 1999) where they use plastic weapons and masks. (Note: at some of these events of play-fencing, you will see the FIS President, Giorgio Scarso (who is also a Maestro) act as a referee to promote the sport with the youngsters and their families...

I have plenty of information concerning how both federations structure the various age categories competitions, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, but this should suffice for now.

[zéphirin]

That's crazy. And a great way to keep Cadets from ever becoming Seniors.

QFT. This is what you get when incompetents run the show and nobody has the guts to restrain them.