Ratings Connundrum

[catwood1]

No one is saying the USFA didn't eff up, or that its ok that they effed up.

What people are saying is that coming onto a message board to gripe and complain about it doesn't accomplish very much. People are also saying that even though they effed up, it probably didn't change very much.

At plenty of NACs, there are foreign fencers that go in seeded as a U. They may have FIE points, but are seeded as a U. If everytime a fencer got one of them in his or her pool, they came on here to ***** and moan, it would be a very boring F.net.

[wahrman]

You have to remember what the ratings and seeding are. They are a guess at how the final results will play out. They can not be entirely accurate, obviously. If so, we'd not have to fence at all. Sometimes that guess is better than others. My point is, they are always screwed up. It's an imperfect system. Mostly because you don't know how any two people are going to fence on a given day. No, that doesn't mean you should shrug and ignore clerical mistakes. You should do your best to get it fixed but then just go fence and accept the results. Bottom line, winning or losing is up to you, not whether you were seeded as an A08 instead of an A09.

I know it seems harsh but really, the probability that any one person is significantly more screwed than anyone else in the room is slim.

If you are really concerned about a rating change not being reflected on the website, send the USFA an email and they will send you back a letter verifing the rating. Often within a few hours.

Now, if they don't have the rating change from the tournament(s), that's a different problem.

By the way, I'm curious about the reactions. Are people suggesting that the whole rating/seeding process getting screwed up on the USFA/Tournament end is irrelevant, and that they should be given a free pass to screw things up and it's the fencer's fault if the USFA/Tournament organizer makes a mistake?

It seems that this thread has gone way off track. Or perhaps everyone thinks that needless mistakes on the USFA side is perfectly fine, and only fencers (and their parents) can be wrong.

[noodle]

Of course not. When you've gone to many tournaments, you know who is who, and how they fence. While there are always upsets and always good and bad days, when you've fenced the same people many times you have a fairly good idea of where things should flesh out under ordinary circumstances. When the fencers who should end up first and second end up in the same pool, and other pools have nobody who is likely to be competetive, it suggests that something has gone wrong.

By the way, I'm curious about the reactions. Are people suggesting that the whole rating/seeding process getting screwed up on the USFA/Tournament end is irrelevant, and that they should be given a free pass to screw things up and it's the fencer's fault if the USFA/Tournament organizer makes a mistake?

It seems that this thread has gone way off track. Or perhaps everyone thinks that needless mistakes on the USFA side is perfectly fine, and only fencers (and their parents) can be wrong.

no, there are two major points, i feel:

1) the ratings change system is not very functional and it may take some time to see correct changes propagate. it is not ideal.

2) some tournaments are won and lost by initial seeds, yes. however, if you, as a fencer, can only expect to perform well in an event based on where you shake out in the initial seed, you are doing it wrong. fencing is not rock-paper-scissors. no matter where you seed, if you are good, you should be rising to the top.

[JAG]

No one is saying the USFA didn't eff up, or that its ok that they effed up.

What people are saying is that coming onto a message board to gripe and complain about it doesn't accomplish very much. People are also saying that even though they effed up, it probably didn't change very much.

At plenty of NACs, there are foreign fencers that go in seeded as a U. They may have FIE points, but are seeded as a U. If everytime a fencer got one of them in his or her pool, they came on here to ***** and moan, it would be a very boring F.net.

That was pretty much all I was asking in the first place. Not much I can do about it after the fact, though it's being corrected as I type, but note it so that others will be aware of the problem and not make the mistake I did of not making sure sufficiently in advance that any ratings omissions were corrected on time.

It would, of course, be nice if the USFA and organizers could get their act together so that this would never happen, but my sense is that they won't as long as no one holds them accountable for their mistakes. It should not be okay for them to screw up, but perhaps everyone here has gotten so used to it that they've given up trying to fix problems rather than learn to find a way around them. That's unfortunate, as nothing ever gets fixed that way.

As fencers move from regional to national, there's much to learn. If not here, where? I realize that old-timers might find things like this obvious, but there are so many mistakes to make and I'm hoping to avoid making each and every one personally, and hoping to help the next parent to avoid making the same mistakes I did.

Thanks all for your help and thoughts.

[lurkerdad]

Hi JAG:

This is coming from someone who does understand where you're coming from. And of course, your point is valid. The USFA and the whole ratings approval process is inefficient, etc. One practical piece of advice though:

Get to know your Division Secretary -- he or she is the one who eventually has to fax the ratings change form to the USFA. If you know his/her email and he/she knows and respects you, you will probably have a much easier time with getting the change effected ASAP the next time. If you can ask him/her to fax/email you a copy of the ratings change form he just faxed over to the USFA, you should be able to bring that along and get your kid's rating acknowledged in most tournaments (except for NAC's).


Now to join in the theoretical discussion:

Though I feel (and have felt) your frustration about how a better rating, etc. *might* have affected your kid's results had he gotten a better initial seeding, I think the previous advice of learning to get over it is really the most practical one to follow. If he's been fencing like a B, enter him in enough tournaments and he will eventually get it, don't worry. I understand we all want our kids to get his deserved rating or points NOW but it usually all works out in the end. The point about ratings only being approximations is a valid one, especially Youth ratings for Y14 and under. In general, at least for foil it seems that at the Y12/Y14 level, it is now a B that is a pretty reliable indicator that you are a cut above the rest. For example, look at these results:

PDF Y14 MF results

or even:

PDF Y12 MF results

[JAG]

no, there are two major points, i feel:

1) the ratings change system is not very functional and it may take some time to see correct changes propagate. it is not ideal.

2) some tournaments are won and lost by initial seeds, yes. however, if you, as a fencer, can only expect to perform well in an event based on where you shake out in the initial seed, you are doing it wrong. fencing is not rock-paper-scissors. no matter where you seed, if you are good, you should be rising to the top.

The first is the issue I raised. The second is obviously so. There must be an awful lot of griping about ratings for so many to assume the same of me. In fact, errors can work to your benefit, given how the other variables shake out. I fully understand how they work, the consequences, and the ramifications, and I fully understand (as noted in the first place), that this has nothing to do with the need for a fencer to do his best. I supposed that I assume all of this to be so obvious as to not require reemphasis at every turn, but apparently everyone assume that fencing well is a novel concept.

In any event, thanks all (again) for the efforts and explanations.

[noodle]

The first is the issue I raised. The second is obviously so. There must be an awful lot of griping about ratings for so many to assume the same of me. In fact, errors can work to your benefit, given how the other variables shake out. I fully understand how they work, the consequences, and the ramifications, and I fully understand (as noted in the first place), that this has nothing to do with the need for a fencer to do his best. I supposed that I assume all of this to be so obvious as to not require reemphasis at every turn, but apparently everyone assume that fencing well is a novel concept.

In any event, thanks all (again) for the efforts and explanations.

re-read your original post. the focus is not on the fact that the response time for new ratings is poor, but instead on how your son would've done so much better if only they were seeded properly.

[JAG]

re-read your original post. the focus is not on the fact that the response time for new ratings is poor, but instead on how your son would've done so much better if only they were seeded properly.

I guess the initial post wasn't sufficiently clear as it failed to convey the point to you. My apologies. I thought it was abundantly clear that the problem was the failing of the adults to correctly handle the ratings changes, with the rationale being the impact on the fencers. But each person reads words differently, or finds greater significance in the aspect that strikes closest to home for them.

[JAG]

Get to know your Division Secretary -- he or she is the one who eventually has to fax the ratings change form to the USFA. If you know his/her email and he/she knows and respects you, you will probably have a much easier time with getting the change effected ASAP the next time. If you can ask him/her to fax/email you a copy of the ratings change form he just faxed over to the USFA, you should be able to bring that along and get your kid's rating acknowledged in most tournaments (except for NAC's).

As an aside, one of the most ironic things is that my Div president was there, sitting with the bout committee, as I raised the problem. He was also present the week before when the 2009 rating was earned for the third time, and placed the medal around my son's neck when he won. It was he who said that if it didn't appear on the website, there was nothing they could do to change the seeding. He did promise to fix it as soon as he returned back.

Since I had never found myself in this situation before, I did not recognize the need to obtain evidence in advance and bring it with me. My son's ratings had always been updated timely, so I never confronted the issue of someone dropping the ball. Who knew?

[lurkerdad]

As an aside, one of the most ironic things is that my Div president was there, sitting with the bout committee, as I raised the problem. He was also present the week before when the 2009 rating was earned for the third time, and placed the medal around my son's neck when he won. It was he who said that if it didn't appear on the website, there was nothing they could do to change the seeding. He did promise to fix it as soon as he returned back.

Since I had never found myself in this situation before, I did not recognize the need to obtain evidence in advance and bring it with me. My son's ratings had always been updated timely, so I never confronted the issue of someone dropping the ball. Who knew?

Note that I said get to know your Division Secretary not really the President/Chair. The Secretary is the one who actually is supposed to do the paperwork, so unless your Division president is also doing the secretary's duties, for this goal it's actually more important to be in good graces with the Div Secretary.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I was going to do a more thorough response, but by the time I realized I was halfway through the thread and had already selected about 6 posts.......

So a few points:

*Ratings are not a good predictor of much of anything. They are a high-water mark. The best a particular fencer has done in the tournaments they've had the opportunity to attend. They are also largely out of the control of those who try to earn them. Someone else's good or bad day can make useless a day of very good fencing (see: so and so beats the B on his way up the tableau, and so not enough Bs come in the top whatever, so he doesn't get the rating upgrade he wanted). Since it's so wildly out of control of the fencer, it's an outcome goal, and those are a pretty bad idea. They're perfectly natural and obvious to want, but they don't help motivation, learning, mood, self esteem, or any of the things parents, coaches, and anyone in a mentoring role ought to be emphasizing.

*Since we've decided this is the system we're going with, we should be getting it right.

..... That's very easy to say, and much harder to do. You see, most of the people who are involved with updating ratings aren't getting paid very well for their time and energy. Most of the chain, if paid at all, it's indirectly. When you have a volunteer army, sometimes the people in the chain aren't the most committed people. If you want the events and organization to be better for your child, and you care enough to do something about it, you have to get involved. There are a thousand ways you can get involved that make the system better. Ask. Someone will let you know.

*Another note: There are policies and requirements to include a rating officially for a reason. As much as it sucks to not get to use your brandy new rating for a while, it would be worse if anyone who could forge a simple piece of paper could get to use whatever rating they wanted. The system isn't perfect, no. But it is better than a number of other systems.


Note: Many people have reacted in a way that is somewhat defensive. That is because you came into a community and lashed out at a status quo without giving any indication in your first post that you're not a whiney asshole who wants everything good to happen to you and your saintly child because you deserve it, and will never do anything for it. I doubt you are that person, or at least aren't 99% of the time (we all need to complain sometimes, after all!), but those people do exist, as I'm sure you know, and most of us don't have patience for them anymore.

We have plenty of patience for people who want to know why the system is set up this way, how they can make the current system work better, and maybe has an idea about how the system could be changed to make it work better and easier. This goes over better than "the sky is falling!".

"Plenty of blame, but the children are still the ones left to suffer." .... Uh, do you think it's only Y14s that have ratings not take effect? Do you think that there is a different rating system for kids than for adults? Why do you think that children suffer disproportionately?

[contre-Sixte]

Top Ten Reasons a Tournament doesn't go my way:

1) Not mentally prepared
2) Not physically in shape
3) Life outside of fencing going bad
4) Equipment problems
5) Refs who have not been trained to call everything my way
6) Bad flight/travel to venue
7) Superior opponents
8) I suck
9) Sickness
10) Injury

Bad seeding doesn't make my list

[JAG]

Note: Many people have reacted in a way that is somewhat defensive. That is because you came into a community and lashed out at a status quo without giving any indication in your first post that you're not a whiney asshole who wants everything good to happen to you and your saintly child because you deserve it, and will never do anything for it. I doubt you are that person, or at least aren't 99% of the time (we all need to complain sometimes, after all!), but those people do exist, as I'm sure you know, and most of us don't have patience for them anymore.

We have plenty of patience for people who want to know why the system is set up this way, how they can make the current system work better, and maybe has an idea about how the system could be changed to make it work better and easier. This goes over better than "the sky is falling!".

What has been most fascinating for someone in my position, new to this community, is the way the regulars have reacted to the issue raised. I can well understand that many newbies show up to complain about unfairness to their "saintly child" and why regulars are tired of hearing it. But some jumped to conclusions about my motives because of this, while others tried to help by educating.

A while back, the parents in my club had a talk about this discussion board, and the consensus was to stay as far away as possible, as the community is insular, nasty and too vested in their own interests to consider the possibility that everyone new to the discussion isn't a blithering idiot, whiner or determined to make fencing their entire life.

In other words, this can be a very intolerant place, which means that there are going to be some who might have a good point, or want to be helpful, or want to contribute, but are driven away by the defensiveness and presumptuousness here. It won't change our children fencing, but it will mean that some who might contribute won't come back.

All newcomers are not morons or whiners. Some may actually be reasonably intelligent in real life, perhaps even the sort of people that regulars go see (and pay) for advice in real life. Some of the regulars here, if I may be so bold, appear rather idiotic, but it's not my place to presume anything about anyone, even though their comments may not reflect much intelligence.

Some newbies might be happy to contribute to the welfare of fencing by volunteering. Some may already volunteer, though they don't promote themselves off the top when it isn't relevant to the discussion. One of the primary reasons someone new would come here is because they have a problem or a question. Do you think they would feel welcome by the way they are treated, or must they first pass muster with the regulars before being treated with basic courtesy?

The responses received here reflect a wide variety of attitudes, some appreciated more than others. On the whole, though, it would seem that many in the regular community have decided that anyone new is presumed to be a blithering idiot and a whiner, and that's how they are treated. No doubt someone has mentioned all of this before, and I offer nothing new, but it's something to consider.

[Allen Evans]

All newcomers are not morons or whiners. Some may actually be reasonably intelligent in real life, perhaps even the sort of people that regulars go see (and pay) for advice in real life. Some of the regulars here, if I may be so bold, appear rather idiotic, but it's not my place to presume anything about anyone, even though their comments may not reflect much intelligence.

Some newbies might be happy to contribute to the welfare of fencing by volunteering. Some may already volunteer, though they don't promote themselves off the top when it isn't relevant to the discussion. One of the primary reasons someone new would come here is because they have a problem or a question. Do you think they would feel welcome by the way they are treated, or must they first pass muster with the regulars before being treated with basic courtesy?

I've certainly noticed some of the things that you mention with new posters, but I also see an increasing trend that many of the first posts of new members to F.net are often harshly critical of processes they don't understand or misinterpret out of inexperiance. Your own original post in this thread (your second post on F.net, I believe) reads as pretty critical of the people who volunteer time, effort and money to making this sport work, even in an imperfect way. Some of the language you used in that post was very powerful and painted a large group of people in a very poor light, without asking for information about why things are they way they are.

Your frustration with the reporting of ratings is certainly understandable (and, unfortunatley, common), but so is the reaction you got to your orginal post.

Fortunately, there are people on F.net who do try to be helpful no matter what the situation (Fencing Mom and MP's posts come to mind). The nice thing about some of the bad behavior on F.net is that it shows itself pretty quickly, and you can rapidly figure out who is worth listening to, and who you can select to "ignore". To your credit, you backed off from the tone of your first post quite early, which encourgages helpful responses in the future.

AE

[JAG]

I've certainly noticed some of the things that you mention with new posters, but I also see an increasing trend that many of the first posts of new members to F.net are often harshly critical of processes they don't understand or misinterpret out of inexperiance. Your own original post in this thread (your second post on F.net, I believe) reads as pretty critical of the people who volunteer time, effort and money to making this sport work, even in an imperfect way. Some of the language you used in that post was very powerful and painted a large group of people in a very poor light, without asking for information about why things are they way they are.

Your frustration with the reporting of ratings is certainly understandable (and, unfortunatley, common), but so is the reaction you got to your orginal post.

Fortunately, there are people on F.net who do try to be helpful no matter what the situation (Fencing Mom and MP's posts come to mind). The nice thing about some of the bad behavior on F.net is that it shows itself pretty quickly, and you can rapidly figure out who is worth listening to, and who you can select to "ignore". To your credit, you backed off from the tone of your first post quite early, which encourgages helpful responses in the future.

AE

You raise an interesting point about volunteerism, particularly in light of the parent involvement discussion. The fact that many involved are volunteers has been raised numerous times as an explanation for certain problems. This isn't something that applies only to fencing, but to many endeavors that rely on volunteers.

My spouse and I volunteer regularly for a variety of causes that are important to us. When we do so, we approach our responsibility as if we were being paid a million dollars, and find it disturbing when others neglect their responsibility, saying "it's not like we're being paid to do this." When one undertakes a responsibility, regardless of whether you're paid for it or do it out of the goodness of your heart, it should be fulfilled. If someone either can't, or won't, fulfill the responsibility, then they should not accept it. Taking a voluntary responsibility and then dropping the ball for lack of payment is, in my world view, wrong. We see every responsibility as a matter of personal pride, and fulfill every one as if it was our only one. It's simply our view of life.

In anticipation, I note that some would respond that there aren't enough people willing to volunteer that we can be so picky. While that may be true, it may also be true that there are more people than you know who would be willing to volunteer, and take their responsibilities very seriously even though not getting paid, if the need was made clear and they were welcome into the fold.

My experience is that many volunteer groups form their own inside cliques, and take some perverse pride in playing the martyr while keeping others away. Some people need the title for their self-esteem, though they really don't want to do the work. Others wear out but want to remain an insider, so hold onto their position. Is it possible that there are some/many who would happily volunteer to help, but for the fact that they are made to believe their help isn't needed or welcome?

Then, of course, there is the question of whether there is a systemic issue if one can't find enough volunteers willing to perform the function of their position properly. Do systemic problems and failures make the job so unpalatable that no one would want it or do it right? If so, then volunteers are being abused instead of fixing the systemic issues.

And finally, I am reminded that many of us are at clubs and go to tournament that are very expensive, at least in our eyes, and reasonably expect the people being paid to perform up to par. Every club is different, and costs can vary widely. Some club owners are unable to think about costs from a member standpoint, and only see them from a cost/profit standpoint. For these owners, if they aren't making enough money out of the club, then they aren't concerned about how expensive it is to parents/fencers and only see their side of the burden.

To then expect parents/fencers, who already pay substantial sums to the club, to feel empathetic to the club owner may be asking too much. Maybe the club owner needs more members/students, and should ask himself why he doesn't have enough to sustain the club, make a profit and keep fees at a reasonable rate. Maybe the club owner isn't much of a businessperson. Or maybe parents are unreasonable.

The point is that all of these factors should be considered before using volunteerism as an explanation/excuse for problems. I suspect that many, if they take a hard look at things, will see why these problems exist and will find that it's not really about volunteering per se, but whether the volunteers are well managed and doing it for the right reasons.

[Allen Evans]

Just to clarify my point a little bit: one of the other limitations of volunteerism that is that a volunteer (esp. at a local level, like your Division Secretary or other officers) is stuck with the system they've volunteered for: they aren't in a position to do anything besides the role they've been given in the organization. Yelling at them (or pointing the finger at them) won't do any good if they are doing the job within their parameters and someone further in the process (or the process itself) isn't working properly. They may also not know enough about the process to reccommend changes, or feel that they cannot have an impact on changes. Never-the-less, it's part of their job to at least do their part with diligence.

All of your points are very valid. I'm glad that you take any volunterr positions with a great deal of responsiblity, while at the same time, recognizing that others are going to fall short on occasion.

AE

[teacup]

Jag,
Have you considered volunteering to be secretary of your division?

[oiuyt]

Jag,
Have you considered volunteering to be secretary of your division?

From JAG's descriptions it's unclear, but best guess is the failure point was prior to the Division Secretary (and certainly prior to anyone who works for US Fencing). It sounds like the tournament organizers haven't provided the tournament results to the division. Which, in turn, means the division hasn't provided them to the National Office. Which, in turn, means that the National Office hasn't recorded the change(s) and published them. Which, in turn, means that subsequent tournaments are correct to not use the new classifications yet.

Best guess is the first transmission point is the failure. Everyone else appears to have been complained to, but really never had any information upon which to act. JAG mentioned that the tournament organizer has been unavailable for contact.

Now it's certainly possible that the failure was at some later point. There hasn't been any indication of that in this thread, but there really haven't been many specific facts such as "X said that s/he had sent it along to Y" to really track down the failure point with any reliability. Other than the one data point that the National Office has stated that they hadn't received the classification change report.

-B

[Mo]

I think Jag has some valid points as do all of the posters.
The one thing I wanna know is, how does a 24 year old person have a 14 year old son?
Anyone else read the profile?
The Momster

[Superscribe]

Bahahahaha