Ratings Connundrum

[noodle]

What remains amazing is how simplistic so many here are. Noodles make silly assumptions, then wants to hold me responsible for her fantasies. You assume that people are so singularly one dimensional that raising an issue makes it the central focus of life.

the simple fact is that the topic at hand is one dimensional. i make no assumptions about you as a person, i'm only discussing the issue of people putting way too much stock into ratings.

Are you all this vapid? This started out as a beef, but it isn't all there is in life. What could conceivably make people who are apparently smart enough to write in the English language make such bizarrely ridiculous assumptions, as if we are huddled in the basement thinking of ways to strike out at the USFA? You all can't be this insane.

no one is defending the USFA to the degree i feel you think we are. the rating system and tournament structure is broken and it needs to be fixed. i'd like to see it replaced by a numeric system.

with respect to being vapid, this is a thread in a discussion board. we're talking about this subject here because you brought it up. that is how it works.

Get a life. Worry about yourselves. We have long since moved beyond with a half dozen tournaments since and plenty of other things to occupy our time. Just because someone raises a beef doesn't mean that they, apparently like all of you, become obsessed about it. Seriously. Worry about yourself. You really need it.

meh. you do what you like, the only reason i've continued to post in here is because people keep posting things worth discussing. including yourself. so, i suppose the "get a life" comment would be equally applied to you, here.

you raised a beef, we all gave you feedback, which apparently you didn't like, you got defensive, and now you're telling us to worry about ourselves despite the fact that you're the one that put your personal situation on the internet and asked us to comment about it. definitely makes sense.

this site is a great resource for information. but if you come here just to get a pat on the back and your point of views supported, you're going to be sorely disappointed. discussion and dissenting opinions are how issues get raised and things get changed.

and, i'm done with this thread now.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Look, I think you're approaching things in a strange way. I fence because I enjoy fencing. Because I enjoy fencing, I want to get better because I want to be as good as I can be at what I enjoy (even in non-competitive venues of my life). Winning tells me that I'm getting better. Thus, I enjoy winning.

A rating doesn't make me better. I, for some reason, always seem to end up in tough pools or tricky pools or whatever. Other fencers have commented on this as well. I don't use it as an excuse, however. Once I enter DEs, my rating, my seeding, etc. don't matter anymore. I fence to win those bouts. Where I place in the tournament doesn't matter to me, because it's based on a multitude of factors. What matters is if I win the bouts placed in front of me. If I'm fencing someone who I've beaten before, I want to beat him by one more point (or more) than last time. If I'm fencing someone who beat me before, I want to beat them. If I'm fencing someone that I have no chance against, I want to get one more point that they think I should/I did last time.

I wouldn't get hung up on the rating thing. Okay, it was wrong for one tournament. In the long run, it doesn't matter. Get it fixed so that it doesn't happen next time, because if you earn a rating, you deserve that rating, but don't get all bent out of shape when it happens once.

[Zhais]

Yea, rating/seeding means nothing, as I found out (the hard way).

Started 10th seed for epee div II in atlanta, finished 6th seed out of pools. Good for me right?



Lost my first DE badly.



Before that, in Foil D3, finished like 106th seed out of 150, beat my first DE (and well, should've beat 2nd as well due to a bad call, but oh well) against a much higher seed.

Only thing you can do is be good enough to beat /everyone/ at the competition, regardless of pool or DE.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Yea, rating/seeding means nothing, as I found out (the hard way).

Started 10th seed for epee div II in atlanta, finished 6th seed out of pools. Good for me right?



Lost my first DE badly.



Before that, in Foil D3, finished like 106th seed out of 150, beat my first DE (and well, should've beat 2nd as well due to a bad call, but oh well) against a much higher seed.

Only thing you can do is be good enough to beat /everyone/ at the competition, regardless of pool or DE.

Actually, here I have to disagree a little bit. Initial seeding? Useless. After pools, however, can matter. For qualifying events, if it's top 9 that go, you bet your ass that I want to be 9th or better coming out of pools. Otherwise, it means that I have to win one more bout (which, in some events, I know is unfeasible for me). Still, that's very different from having and X08 or an X09.

[oiuyt]

Initial seeding? Useless.

Very much not true.

Differences in initial seeding can vary the expected result coming out of pools by as much as 1 victory (taking a swing from wildly underseeded to wildly overseeded). A difference in expected result in pools creates a difference in expected seed entering the tableau. Which you've already stipulated is significant.

As an example, let's take triplet fencers John, Jonathan, and Johan. John is about the median fencer in a tournament and is seeded as such initially, let's say as a C. Jonathan is exactly as good as John, but somehow picked up an A classification he very much doesn't deserve. Johan is exactly as good as John and Jonathan, but has never picked up a classification and seeds as a U.

This is a very uniformly distributed tournament, so each pool of 6 has 1 fencer of each classification A-E and a U.

John's pool includes an A, B, D, E, and U fencer in addition to himself. He is expected to go 3-2 and probably does about that.

Jonathan's pool includes himself, with B, C, D, E, and U opponents. He is expected to go 3-1-1. He's about equally likely to go 3-2 with good indicators and 4-1. If he goes 3-2 he's probably got better indicators than John, who got beat on by an A, rather than losing to a C.

Johan's pool has A, B, C, D, E opponents. Johan is expected to go 2-2-1. 2-3 or 3-2, depending on how the 50-50 bout works out.

Jonathan's expected result is approximately 1 victory better than Johan's. Yet they are exactly the same level fencer. Jonathan had a bout that he was a significant favorite (C fencer vs. U fencer), where Johan had a bout where he was the significant underdog (C fencer vs. A fencer). Their other 4 bouts were functionally identical. Jonathan nearly always wins his "extra" bout, while Johan nearly always loses his.

An extra victory entering the tableau is frequently useful.

Don't believe that initial seeding isn't important.

-B

[keith]

Very much not true.

Well your placement in the tableaux always matters. Of course sometimes when you look at the path dropping a bout would have been as beneficial as an additional win.

But as to whether initial seeding into pools matters. Even if you assume that there is a single correct order in the final placings you would be wrong to assume that random seeding into pools would prevent that outcome. It certainly makes it less likely than perfect seeding into pools but not by as much as people seem to assume. As I recall one round of pools is good and two is as good as three (or more).

The whole point of pools (as opposed to direct seeding into a tableaux) is to make the quality of initial seeding less of a factor in determining final placements.

[CadetVet]

That's about as unhelpful a response as I could imagine. Since people get rated, he's allowed to want to improve his rating. And since this is a competition sport, he's allowed to want to win bouts and tournaments and enjoy whatever advantage he's earned, rather than "just enjoy fencing."

But I'll let him know you said so, and I'm sure that will change everything. After all, why would he want to compete and win when he could "just enjoy fencing."

It is also important to remember that this issue goes both ways... if the other, higher rated fencers were "up to snuff" on that day, it is possible that they would have finished above your son - also depriving him of the rating bump.

Many of us have also benefited from good draws in early rounds - or been harmed by bad draws (e.g., fencers much stronger than their seed).

The thing to understand is that it will come - just keep finishing in finals and the stars will eventually align properly.

[JAG]

And yet another story to tell. A Friday night round robin of 16 fencers. My son fenced 15 and won all but one bout. He took first place. Toward the end of the round robin, three fencers withdrew, all of whom my son fenced and beat. One was tired, and two were doing poorly and chose not to finish.

They were withdrawn from the competition, reducing the total number of fencers to 13. The top 8 had the requisite ratings. One of the three was a higher rated fencer, and the other two were lower. The rating for the competition was reduced to an E1 for lack of participants. Had they been included, he would have earned a new rating. Without them, he did not.

Yes, he will no doubt eventually earn the higher rating. But he was hoping to gain it before the Summer Nationals, and this was likely his last opportunity to do so. He did his part, including winning 15 bouts, but was at the mercy of someone he beat walking away after a poor showing. My pep talks are becoming increasingly difficult.

[Ionut]

Oh God, not another story...

[GuyW]

Regarding inequities in fencing tournaments, I'll quote my son's honorary fencing coach (Rocky Balboa):

"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that!"
.

[dcrocket]

And yet another story to tell.

Yes, he will no doubt eventually earn the higher rating. But he was hoping to gain it before the Summer Nationals, and this was likely his last opportunity to do so. He did his part, including winning 15 bouts, but was at the mercy of someone he beat walking away after a poor showing. My pep talks are becoming increasingly difficult.

All of the collective wisdom of the fencing community* is not going to change the result here.....oh well...


*and there is a considerable amount displayed in this thread

[Mr Epee]

And yet another story to tell. A Friday night round robin of 16 fencers. My son fenced 15 and won all but one bout. He took first place. Toward the end of the round robin, three fencers withdrew, all of whom my son fenced and beat. One was tired, and two were doing poorly and chose not to finish.

They were withdrawn from the competition, reducing the total number of fencers to 13. The top 8 had the requisite ratings. One of the three was a higher rated fencer, and the other two were lower. The rating for the competition was reduced to an E1 for lack of participants. Had they been included, he would have earned a new rating. Without them, he did not.

Yes, he will no doubt eventually earn the higher rating. But he was hoping to gain it before the Summer Nationals, and this was likely his last opportunity to do so. He did his part, including winning 15 bouts, but was at the mercy of someone he beat walking away after a poor showing. My pep talks are becoming increasingly difficult.

I'm pretty sure that 16 person round-robin isn't a format approved by the USFA to hand out ratings, so there were never any ratings at stake in that competition. While I don't expect you to know that, I do hope you take the time to mention it to the organizers who should know something that basic.

[mrbiggs]

I'm pretty sure that 16 person round-robin isn't a format approved by the USFA to hand out ratings, so there were never any ratings at stake in that competition. While I don't expect you to know that, I do hope you take the time to mention it to the organizers who should know something that basic.

Round robins can hand out ratings, so if the event followed all procedures correctly it could potentially hand out ratings.

That said, withdrawals happen all the time at tournaments and much, much more often at round robins, so say "oh well" and get over it. Round robins are about fencing many bouts and getting experience, not about ratings. You're making a mistake if you think about it any other way.

[SEM Fencer]

This is the last thread I'll EVER read in the Parent's Corner. I'm so glad that my kid is old enough for me to NOT worry about things like this on his behalf, not that I'd ever whine about things like this in an open forum. None of us will ever attain the level of perfection you are seeking for your child -- not tournament organizers, not referees, not fencers, not division officers or even national office employees...not his/her teachers in school, professors in college, employers or potential spouses. None of us. Mistakes happen. You need to let your child live his own life, and let him learn from all of this, this, this...imperfection.

There is a great deal of collective wisdom in this thread, and I was really pleased to read some of it. Mssrs. Evans, Academe, Fencerwallet...nice job TRYING to explain it. There's a saying, though, that I think is very appropriate for this particular parent, and it goes something like this, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

With that nugget...I leave youth fencing behind FOREVER! HOORAY!!!!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

With that nugget...I leave youth fencing behind FOREVER! HOORAY!!!!

Just wait until the grandkids want you to drive them around to their fencing competitions!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[mfp]

Round robins can hand out ratings,

Says who?

Apparently not the USFA's Operations Manual.

[fdad]

Says who?

Apparently not the USFA's Operations Manual.

Where does it say you must have DEs?

[Hauptman]

Where does it say you must have DEs?

This is a good question. I remember when tournaments were all pools til the end with no DE's, but then I've never heard of something like this which is essentially a single pool of 16 people.

My question is about what constitutes a competition that can be rated; this doesn't sound like a publicized sanctioned tournament, but more like a club having an informal round robin on a Friday night for fun. Does the USFA care, or do they just take any results and ratings that a club might send in at face value?

[countambrosius]

Initial seeds mean nothing...all you have to do is fence...for example in Div III in Dallas, I was seeded like 72 out of 140 or so something like that...and I still won all my bouts...so your theory is stupid...just tell your son to fence and win...simple as that....

[wahrman]

JAG: Maybe fencing just isn't for you or your son.