Back to the new ratings chart

[swordsen]

I found it interesting that in the commneting, ranting and raving about the changes to the rating systems no one (that I noticed) commented on what I think is the most signifigant change made.
namely the fact that you can now give ratings at Age restricted events at the division santioned events. so it is quite possible if you had a large enough crowd of 9 yo's in a realtivly shot time once could make some C's who had never fenced anyone of any age or even more experience.
It is a rather intriguing change and one that I am not sure I like. but it will make things interesting.
(that fact that there are 90+ kids taking fencing at the school where I teach makes for some interesting possibilities....)

[edew]

Go for it! I think it helps make kids more interested in the sport, help keep them in the sport. Also, it helps to some degree in seeding youth and junior events.

Prior to offering ratings, we'll have a tournament with 45 fencers, two of them D's three E's. So how to you sort out the rest of the U's? It's clearly not fair to just assign them randomly, because some of them are much better than others.

So I think it helps seed youth events. Of course, one could say that a "C" 12-year old isn't as good as a "C" adult. But what I'm seeing now is that a lot of the 12 year olds are pretty darn good. They may not be top of the world, but they're pretty good. And when they turn 14 or so, they're really tough to fight against.

[oiuyt]

Eric- If they're good enough to be worth of the rating they should be able to earn it in a non-age restricted event. Last weekend I fenced against Danny Berliner, an 11-year old C (sabre). He's good, he deserves his C (earned at a local open event). Do ANY of the kids where swordsen is talking about? Almost certainly not. Run monthly tournaments (or better yet, split them into groups for multiple simultaneously run tournaments each month) and quickly (this season) the top 5-10 of them will have Cs.

The primary benefit that I see to this change is that you won't have things like JO qualifiers in a strong division not give people ratings that they truly deserve. The rating system is flawed, but works fairly well despite that. This change creates more and larger flaws then it fixes. ESPECIALLY because of one of the known flaws in the system (that it measures peak result rather than long-term results) this will add additional biases to the system and make abberrant ratings more common. Would it be nice to have some way of sub-dividing the U's? Of course. The proper way is NOT to make some of them C's and D's and E's.

Until now championships that were age restricted could give ratings. I had a problem with this policy, I think that it allows for people to maintain unearned ratings longer but thought that it wasn't much of an issue, there are just too few championships, and many of them are large enough that enough people that DO still deserve the ratings will take them. Having every age restricted event eligible for ratings will make this problem grow to the point where it should be an issue. The events now can be smaller (meaning fewer top people to take the ratings available) and much more common.

I think the BOD made the wrong decision with removing the restriction.

-B :)

[edew]

We do have youths earning their ratings in non age-restricted events. We had a kid get his D in the Div II/III/vet qualifiers last year. Of course, in some of those events, only one guy or three get new classifications.

This past weekend, a junior in high school earned his C02, beating an adult. Another junior earned his B02, taking third in an Group A2 event. Two other youths (actual youths, still competing in Y12/Y14 events) earned their D and E respectively. Another picked up his C02.

[swordsen]

Yes, we all realize that there are very good youth fencers out there that can earn a rating and whup many of us fairly easily. that does not change the fact that with the new system I can take a bunch of kids, none of whom had evr fenced before August and with a little work I could concievably create a huge stack of D's and E's and a probably a few C's out of people who can barely fence. (note: I will not intentionally do this)

It leaves a big open spot for abuse. Which will take a realtivly worthless rating and further devalue it.
I am curious to see how it shakes out.

[veeco]

I think the reason why the USFA made this is because they probably grew tired of parents and kids whining because they did not get ratings. So they said, "well, let's give ratings in all tournaments, this way this will give something for kids to strive for, and it will keep them longer in the sport".

In reality, I don't know how many repeat members that represents, but a nice side effect of that is that veterans can now get ratings at their events, which is nice.

[Mo]

"I think the reason why the USFA made this is because they probably grew tired of parents and kids whining because they did not get ratings. So they said, "well, let's give ratings in all tournaments, this way this will give something for kids to strive for, and it will keep them longer in the sport".

Veeco,
The USFA is doing a reasonable job recognizing kids who do very well. Not all kinds are big whiners, some of them are honestly good and ready at 12 to fence with the big guys.

Now a good 12 year old can work their way up fencing events from 12 and Under to Division 1. Isn't easy but it can be done.
Jaqueline Leahy was supposed to have been one of the first fencers to tackle the situation.
If you look at the age requirement list, all events through Division 1 can be fenced if the fencer has points in the next lower level. So a 14 year old with points in Junior and who has at least a C rating can fence Div 1.
Enabling a kid to earn their rating just gives them another avenue to fence.
Right now any fencer who is 13 by January 1 of the competition year can fence in the Division meets, a 11-12 year old with points in Junior can also do so.
Flexibility is a good thing. Give those kiddies a break!

[Saber-Psycho]

Originally posted by EDEW
"one could say that a "C" 12-year old isn't as good as a "C" adult."

OK are you not the guy who picked a 12year-old to WIN div/1a?? Now you're saying that that because they're young they can't POSSIBLY be as good as an adult fencer?? That is age discrimination!!!
Plus when a young fencer gets a "C" or better rating, they're mainly getting it from div/2 or/3 or/1a where they're mainly fencing ADULTS!

[veeco]

Mo,

Please don't think it was a personal offense. I agree with you there are kids who do very well.

I don't think that this change in the rating charts gives them much more possibility to go up to DivI, because I think that if they were strong as a C, they would have earned their entry anyway (either by going on the next category's point list or by getting a C at a local senior tournament).

I do think, however, that one 12 kid who gets a C shouldn't necessarily go and fence Div1 right away. That could be detrimental to their fencing, because they will get used to a different tempo, a different distance, which they won't be able to use against their age group. Furthermore they might get hurt, by some adult "hack" who just started fencing got their C 2 months ago beating up on everyone at a local D and under competition.

So the change has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. I think that with the new system, it's good cause you can fence in one more set of tournaments (provided you get the rating). It's bad because you can end up shooting yourself in the foot.

[edew]

Originally posted by Saber-Psycho
Originally posted by EDEW
"one could say that a "C" 12-year old isn't as good as a "C" adult."

OK are you not the guy who picked a 12year-old to WIN div/1a?? Now you're saying that that because they're young they can't POSSIBLY be as good as an adult fencer?? That is age discrimination!!!
Plus when a young fencer gets a "C" or better rating, they're mainly getting it from div/2 or/3 or/1a where they're mainly fencing ADULTS!

I guess you need to learn how to read. I wrote "one could say..." as meaning someone could say, just not me. But if you read the following sentence, I then say that I'm now seeing a lot of Y12 age fencers are pretty darn good, sort of indicating that the claim that a Y12 C fencer is not as good as an adult C fencer is slowly being destroyed by the facts.

[edew]

Originally posted by veeco
Mo,

Please don't think it was a personal offense. I agree with you there are kids who do very well.

I don't think that this change in the rating charts gives them much more possibility to go up to DivI, because I think that if they were strong as a C, they would have earned their entry anyway (either by going on the next category's point list or by getting a C at a local senior tournament).

I do think, however, that one 12 kid who gets a C shouldn't necessarily go and fence Div1 right away. That could be detrimental to their fencing, because they will get used to a different tempo, a different distance, which they won't be able to use against their age group. Furthermore they might get hurt, by some adult "hack" who just started fencing got their C 2 months ago beating up on everyone at a local D and under competition.

So the change has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. I think that with the new system, it's good cause you can fence in one more set of tournaments (provided you get the rating). It's bad because you can end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Your "accident waiting to happen" scenario is a definite worry. In our Category-2 events, we do have a lot of hacks fencing in those tournaments. They are, well, I wouldn't say atrocious, as that'll give me a bad name among them, but let's say they can stand to use a lot more technical improvements. I'll watch some big hunk of guy run down the strip after a 12-year old, wanting to flick as if he's trying to drive in a nail. Scary. Of course, it doesn't help that the kid does better and beats him, because it makes the guy even more angry and possibly do something stupid like a hip check or an elbow to the mask.

[Saber-Psycho]

Originally posted by edew
Your "accident waiting to happen" scenario is a definite worry. In our Category-2 events, we do have a lot of hacks fencing in those tournaments. They are, well, I wouldn't say atrocious, as that'll give me a bad name among them, but let's say they can stand to use a lot more technical improvements. I'll watch some big hunk of guy run down the strip after a 12-year old, wanting to flick as if he's trying to drive in a nail. Scary. Of course, it doesn't help that the kid does better and beats him, because it makes the guy even more angry and possibly do something stupid like a hip check or an elbow to the mask.

Edew,
It would be helpful of people would realize fencing is about winning points and not hurting the other person for perceived loss of face.
Kids who can fence in adult events should be able to do so but kids also need to be protected.
The USFA's way of earning your way up is at least a start.
I agree with your points too.

[oiuyt]

CURRENTLY 12-yo C's are as good as adult C's (they tend to have different weaknesses and the age/size thing can make them not as good as their technical ability, but the 12-yo's w/C's have MUCH higher technical ability than lots of C's that don't share their growth-related liabilities). The new rules will slowly change that as we start getting more 12-yo C's.

Allowing for a further inconsistency in our rating scheme is NOT good for the sport. The ratings are really intended to reflect what one can do against an open field. Allowing ratings to be earned in ratings-restricted events creates some biases but these can be emprically shown to be fairly minor (the people who do well against low-level people but can't handle mid to high level people at ALL (even as well as the rest of the low level people) will be slightly overrated). Allowing them in age-restricted events is fairly likely to create biases that are NOT minimal.

This was a poor decision.

-B :)

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by edew
I'll watch some big hunk of guy run down the strip after a 12-year old, wanting to flick as if he's trying to drive in a nail.

Sound like you're describing Marek Piatkowski! he did it all day yesterday.

[edew]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer
Sound like you're describing Marek Piatkowski! he did it all day yesterday.

Marek needs a spanking. I'll be bringing my spanker this weekend. Tell him to be ready to bend over for a whuppin'

[Mo]

Marek needs a spanking. I'll be bringing my spanker this weekend. Tell him to be ready to bend over for a whuppin'



Do it Edew and spank him GUD!!!

[Mo]

Originally posted by oiuyt
CURRENTLY Allowing them in age-restricted events is fairly likely to create biases that are NOT minimal.

This was a poor decision.

-B

They will not be allowed in age restricted events based solely on their C ranking. They must have points in the next lowest age group.
Say a 13 year old C wants to fence Division 1, she may only do so if she has points in Junior and is at least a C rated fencer. A 12 year old could do the same thing, she must also have points in Junior AND be at least a C.
The minimum age for Division 2 and Division 3 is 13 UNLESS they have points in Junior.
In conclusion, even if a kid fencer has a C, it does not mean that much, unless they can finish fairly high in Junior. (Under 19) If a junior fencer can get the points, they have earned the right to fence any event.

[DHCJr]

I'm surprised we haven't heard from some of the ladies. The argument I am hearing is one I heard many years ago, but then it was about Women's ratings didn't mean anything unless they earned them in an Open tournament. They even had for a while that a Women's 'A' was considered a Men's 'B' for Open Competiton, etc.

This is sounding very familiar.

Let me give you a situation that happened a little over 15 years ago, an Open Unrestricted Sabre Tournament was held, but not highly published, except to the club that was hosting it. This was when all you needed was 64 bodies. Well, the coach earned an 'A'. You don't have to worry about that with this chart. No one can earn an A unless there enough A's already in the finals. Even a B or C, would be very difficult unless you used the method above a whole lot of times. Are you really worried about some D's and E's?

[oiuyt]

Mo- The "them" in the quote was ratings not fencers. "Allowing [ratings] in age-restricted events is fairly likely to create biases that are NOT minimal."

At least in every division that I've fenced in, local events have allowed people younger than 13 who weren't on the junior points list to fence in opens. I know of at least 1 example at a NAC (yes, I've seen the rules, I understand how they work, that doesn't mean that they're always enforced).

DHC- Okay, your example (the club making their coach an A) helps explain why the PREVIOUS chart came into existence. It has absolutely no bearing on the change to the new chart. That's already a solved problem. It does help to show that there are examples of cases where people will abuse whatever loopholes are allowed into the system. All the more reason not to allow them. I think that allowing age-restricted events to give ratings isn't a loophole, and is much less prone to abuse than the example you gave, but I do believe that it is and will be a source of further ratings inconsistencies. Since the point of the ratings system is to try (at reasonably low overhead) to get a (fairly) good idea of relative abilities of different fencers, inconsistencies detract from the entire point of the system.

The system with this new rule (or rather lack of the old rule against giving ratings in age-restricted events) is not as good as the old system. I think that MOST of the changes made with the new chart are improvements... they lead to a more rational awarding of ratings and fixed some flaws that used to create problems (aka inconsistencies). I'm glad the system was modified, but I don't agree with this aspect of the modifications.

The gender issue is a very good one, it parallels this very cleanly. One additional consideration is what the rating system is trying to measure. If we're trying to rate women fencers vs. other women fencers (which I would argue we should, and are, the important events are gender-segregated), obviously performance in women's only events is what should be used for ratings. Because local levels events are frequently mixed we need to have a way of merging the two rating systems. Calling them equivalent introduces some inconsistencies but hopefully is fairly close to accurate and raises many fewer other issues that can be difficult to equitably deal with.

As to your final question, am I really worried about some D's and E's. Yes. For one, the rating system is prevalent throughout nearly everything we do as a sport. It is a common and easy source of extrinsic motivation and measurement. It clearly affects the tournaments, and how fair they are. I don't believe that it will only be a few ratings here or there. If this change will make a significant difference in the number of younger (or older for that matter) fencers with ratings, which is the whole POINT of the change, then it makes a significant difference in the number of ratings held by fencers. That's almost a tautology. Since this change makes absolutely NO difference in the QUALITY of the fencers, it means that we've diluted the value of a rating. Okay, maybe we should do that, maybe we shouldn't, that's a different question that gets into things like grade-inflation and making people feel good and motivation of beginners etc. Leaving that aside, we've diluted the value of the ratings, but we've systematically only done it for certain segments of the fencing population. That pretty much sums up fairly neatly why I think it's a bad idea.

We claim that the system should independently measure the relative abilities of fencers, and then make sure that it favors certain groups. That's wrong. I'm intellectually offended by things that are so clearly demonstrably false to their own claims. In addition, this will hurt the sport because it will weaken the strength of the ratings system to make tournaments fair. With an inaccurate rating system we end up with unbalanced pools. Unbalanced pools skew the results of tournaments. We don't want skewed results, we want the results to reasonably accurately reflect the ability shown by the various fencers present on that particular day. If these things weren't priorities we would have no need for the rating system in the first place.

-B :)