World Championship Qualification Changes: Pan Am Team Decided Now, US Nat. effected
USFA just updated qualification paths for worlds and pan american zonals based on the conflict with the zonal and nationals that will mean national team members will miss Nationals this year...
Nationals won't count or will be reduced points in some weapons.
It's good this happened during a less important season.
You probably know better than I do when the USFA knew about the problem and when they acted, but I expect that there was probably enough time after when the USFA knew this was a problem to announce a solution prior to the last NAC. That would be my only criticism.
If someone interested but not familiar with the intricacies of fencing (and the USFA dis-organization) were to read the qualification path for each weapon to make world team as published on the USFA web site and this latest decision on how to compute points for each weapon, he/she would conclude that NOBODY is in charge and that decisions are made at the last minute by faceless bureaucrats following directives or principles only known to them.
I just cannot reconcile this with the repeated declarations by the ED, Kurt Aichele, that in the USFA elite program there is a silos mentality which shall not continue.
One of the reasons given few months ago why things were still incommunicado between the various weapon programs was that there was no Director of the HPP (I thought we had an interim one). Now that one has been appointed and is in charge, things are still the same, or worse. Not promising and obviously not helpful for the elite programs.
The other questions are how these decisions are taken and by whom? Did anyone bother to discuss with the coaches of the top athletes in the country?
Each from inside their USOC-equipped "silo," no doubt.
Now that there are no National Coaches--their contract extensions having expired--and the alleged re-vamping of the National Coaching system, one wonders how these pathways will be decided in the future, and by whom?
Not to mention if there will be some degree of uniformity among the weapons...
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
If someone interested but not familiar with the intricacies of fencing (and the USFA dis-organization) were to read the qualification path for each weapon to make world team as published on the USFA web site and this latest decision on how to compute points for each weapon, he/she would conclude that NOBODY is in charge and that decisions are made at the last minute by faceless bureaucrats following directives or principles only known to them.
I just cannot reconcile this with the repeated declarations by the ED, Kurt Aichele, that in the USFA elite program there is a silos mentality which shall not continue.
One of the reasons given few months ago why things were still incommunicado between the various weapon programs was that there was no Director of the HPP (I thought we had an interim one). Now that one has been appointed and is in charge, things are still the same, or worse. Not promising and obviously not helpful for the elite programs.
The other questions are how these decisions are taken and by whom? Did anyone bother to discuss with the coaches of the top athletes in the country?
This is one of the best entries I have ever read on this forum as it summarizes very clearly what a lot of people are thinking.
Do you think having Nationals without the top fencers makes sense and that whoever wins is the "legitimate" national champion without having to face members of the national teams?
Plus, with the current value structure of nationals do you think a lot of people will withdraw? (Are you planning on withdrawing?)
Nationals is already a small competition, I could see, for example, women's saber having 20 people...if someone wins without Mariel Zagunis, Dagmara Woznika and whoever else makes the team is that fair/right?
Do you think having Nationals without the top fencers makes sense and that whoever wins is the "legitimate" national champion without having to face members of the national teams?
Plus, with the current value structure of nationals do you think a lot of people will withdraw? (Are you planning on withdrawing?)
Nationals is already a small competition, I could see, for example, women's saber having 20 people...if someone wins without Mariel Zagunis, Dagmara Woznika and whoever else makes the team is that fair/right?
While I understand your point, lots of competitions do not necessarily have all of the "top" fencers in attendance. For example, for JO's often the top juniors to not attend for a variety of reasons such as: teams may have been determined, those who will soon age out don't bother attending, it is in the middle of NCAA events, the location could be difficult to get to, to qualify in small divisions fencers may just have to show up, but in larger divisions some stronger fencers may not qualify, etc. So the same could be stated of the winners of JO's, but do you really want to diminish their accomplishments due to who didn't show up?
Should strength factor calculations be applied to all US national events rather than picking and choosing some over others for team selection?
There is also the situation in Men's Epee where someone mathematically will meet the top fencers to get into the round of 64 or 32. Wouldn't it be more "fair" and leave less to chance by giving the top fencers a bye into the round of 32 or 16, the same as is done in Sr. WC's? Maybe points should be awarded according to field size?
It is a complicated issue but one worth discussing.
My opinion is that if you want to be on the National team, you need to fully compete at the National Championship (or have a valid medical excuse).
I wouldn't agree with subsidizing any international travel that weekend for fencers or staff.
However, from the point of view of the USOC and the national organization, it's not a question of athletes wanting to be on the National Team - it's a matter of having the best possible athletes representing the US on the team. Part of the process for developing and selecting those athletes IS national competition, of course, but national competition is not the highest goal for the country.
I just realized as I was typing this that I'm not going to my national championships (veterans) because I'm already qualified for the team and have a work conflict, so perhaps I'm biased
__________________ I'm not anonymous. We just haven't been properly introduced.
Do you think having Nationals without the top fencers makes sense
Nope, but that's what we're stuck with.
Obviously the intention is to make sure that someone can't win nationals and make the team while the team is competing in zonals. That's fair.
But who could pull it off? Assume the zonal team is Ben/Tim/Jason/James. The lowest point total will be James, with 3688 counting Portland. Daryl is next in line with 2736 counting Portland. 600 points would be lower than both his G1 results, so even if he won it wouldn't change his position. So what's the point of setting the strength at 0.6 when even a win by the next fencer in line for the team wouldn't change the standings? Daryl would need a G1 result of 1,786 just to tie James, which isn't even possible. He'd need to get those points from world cups, which will obviously be attended by national team members anyway so there's no conflict there. This is all assuming that James doesn't pick up any more points from now until world team selection.
Why not let nationals be the normal 1.3? Ok, fine, the top 4 won't be there. So make it a 1.0. Mathematically it wouldn't make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10000Fencers
(Are you planning on withdrawing?)
Nope. It just seems pretty strange that winning D1 nationals is now worth less than making top 8 at a NAC. World team or not, it'll still be a tough competition.
I just realized as I was typing this that I'm not going to my national championships (veterans) because I'm already qualified for the team and have a work conflict, so perhaps I'm biased
You're not the only fencer who's ever decided not to attend National Championships because their spot on the world team was secure. It happens relatively frequently.
The people this hurts most are the people who are on the cusp of making the team. Even for them, they're still competitive since there are still international competitions left.
I'm not defending the policy (policies), by any means. On the other hand, they had to make a decision.
However, from the point of view of the USOC and the national organization, it's not a question of athletes wanting to be on the National Team - it's a matter of having the best possible athletes representing the US on the team. Part of the process for developing and selecting those athletes IS national competition, of course, but national competition is not the highest goal for the country.
emphasis added
I agree that the goal of any national federation should be to make sure that under its own selection process, the best possible athletes emerge. However, your statement "but national competition is not the highest goal for the country" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
A "new" zonal championship in the Americas and in El Salvador at the same time of the US National championships (run at the same period every year for many years) are not the same kettle of fish. A zonal championship in Europe for its national teams would be a different story.
The problem is actually how could this calendar conflict have happened and why did we wait so long to make multiple different decisions for the 6 weapons (two actually, WE and WF are under the same rules: wonder how did that happen considering there are no WE national coaches and the former WF national coach is now the new HP Director).
One could speculate that this overlap of dates was or should have been known as soon as the FIE announced it, months ago. What would you expect an effective and efficient national federation, with a rep in the FIE EC, one which is considered by all (outside the US) as the emerging power in the world of fencing from cadet all the way to senior would or could have done?
Let me guess:
1. Call and talk with the other memebers of the FIE EC and explain why this cannot stay since it both sabotages the effectiveness and success of the zonal (since many US fencers will not go, and many of them are at the top of the FIE rankings) and creates problems to the USFA (the leading federation in the zone) and its members as it has been noted.
2. Launch a campaign to reverse this decision showing everybody that we are to be taken seriously. If we don't know how to do it, just imagine the reaction of the French, or the Germans, or the Russians, or the Italians if the European Zonal had been scheduled against their respective national championships and ask them what they would have done.
3. Even if the FIE had replied (like the USFA does when we complain about conflicts) that the dates of the zonal were cast in stone, then the logical reply of any federation, particularly of the leading federation in the zone, would have been to say, "fine, then we aren't going to San Salvador and good luck to you!"
Instead, what did we do? Bend over and shoot ourselves in the foot or probably not even bother to raise our voice in a prompt and effective way.
The question I'd like to have answered is WHY?
I have my own theories, but I'd like to hear from others who are interested in and affected by these problems.
3. Even if the FIE had replied (like the USFA does when we complain about conflicts) that the dates of the zonal were cast in stone, then the logical reply of any federation, particularly of the leading federation in the zone, would have been to say, "fine, then we aren't going to San Salvador and good luck to you!"
That would have been an extraordinarily stupid response on our part ... because our teams would lose tons of points ... leading to worse seeding in future team events ... directly affecting our chances of qualifying in 2012.
Linear Mode
