NAC A - Des Moines, 2009

[oiuyt]

Using computers, why can't all tournaments NAC, WC's, Cadet designated, ROC's, SYC's, etc. have strength factor calculations similar to the formulas used for junior and senior world cups? The goal would be to rank all events and award points accordingly, this would negate the need for Group I and II points. Best X number of events would be used for rankings. Eventually, the letter rankings would be unnecessary since almost everyone would have a numerical ranking as is done by the FIE.

Evan Ranes is leading a sub-group under the Tournament Committee examining pretty much exactly what you're talking about. I don't know where they are in the process.

Among other systems I know they're looking at variations on George Masin's ELO-based system, at least one system from Table Tennis, and the numeric system presented in one of the discussion papers from the Tournament Task Force in 2006 that's effectively a domestic version of the strength factors currently used for weighting world cups for our domestic points system. I would be unsurprised to find that they are examining an even more diverse set of possible solutions than just those three.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to any wholesale change in the system. Different options are better or worse in a number of different dimensions. Unintended consequences abound, so making sure the system is as robust as possible and heavily testing it using historic data is essential. Running it as a parallel "shadow" system for a season or more is also likely required.

Hopefully as Evan's group gets more research done there will eventually be a report to the Board and membership.

-B

[edew]

We've been down this road about changing the classification system since, well, since r.s.f. (Are usenet groups still around?) I've always advocated a system that is marketable, clear to newbies, and never disadvantages strong fencers from competing.

[oiuyt]

We've been down this road about changing the classification system since, well, since r.s.f. (Are usenet groups still around?) I've always advocated a system that is marketable, clear to newbies, and never disadvantages strong fencers from competing.

I believe that some, but not all, of the numeric systems proposed conform with your desiderata list.

-B

[gladius]

Logically, it would seem that a Cadet Designated event should not yield more points than a Junior NAC.

This was the ONLY comparison I made in my previous posts: international cadet designated events, i.e., international competitions ONLY for cadets and where ONLY cadets compete, to which our cadets go or are forced to go to get a boatload of "fake" points compared with points our cadets could have earned at NACs, either junior or Div I. Unless I didn't understand you I think we are in agreement on this.

It gets a bit tricky however, when SF are involved, specifically when talking about Junior NACs compared to Cadet Designated. The problem is that Junior NACs, unlike Junior Word Cups, as you know, have many, many Cadet fencers. JWC have some Cadet fencers, but not as many as the NACs.

Here you are changing and confusing the subject by introducing junior WC designated events.

Cadets can compete nationally in cadet NACs, junior NACs, Div I NACs. Internationally cadets can compete (for points) at international cadet designated international events (only for cadets), junior-A WC designated events, etc. The comparison I make is ONLY between international cadet designated events (with only cadets) and NACs events (junior and Div I). In other words should a cadet go and compete abroad in these third rate cadet events or fence here at USFA NACs (junior and Div I)? Other than the fact that these third rate events are given "fake" points, with or without the SF, the answer should be NO in the interest of the fencers, their families, AND the USFA.

I agree that junior-A designated WC events are stronger than junior NAC (and obviously cadet NAC) for various reasons, not the least that junior-A WC events have a max number of 12 fencers for each nation (other than those of the host country which can be up to about 20+). This in itself guarantees that you don't have 450+ entries with 320+ fencers from one country alone so there is a certain caliber of fencing. But "Cabries coup mondiale" (Cabries worldly cup) and other such events for and with cadets only are NOT junior-A WC and fall in terms of "fencing level" in between our NAC cadet and our NAC junior events, whether these international events have 400+ or 40 competitors.

You and I have been around long enough to realize that that there are Cadet Designated events that are actually stronger than our Junior NACs. As this year, the MF in Cabries will have a SF of 1.5, it will yield more points than a Junior NAC, as in your WF example from last year. I believe those points will be deserved however.

You give me more credit than I deserve but I respectfully disagree with your opinion for the reasons mentioned above. To give to MF Cabries this year a 1.5 SF (if this is the case) is even more absurd than what was done last year when Cabries MF with 456 was given no SF and Cabries WF with 257 was given a 1.3 SF. No semi-serious fencing federation would have done what we did last year and a fortiori wouldn't even think of doing what you say we will do this year.

To make matters more complicated, the SF formula, when applied to JWC will yield some events where the points payed are less than for a Junior NAC.

This is a different subject since you compare junior events, designated junior-A WC and junior NAC, and it should be discussed separately.

The only answer I can see to eliminate this apparent disparity is to junk the domestic points charts for Cadets/Juniors and Seniors, and develop a reliable and consistent SF for all NACs in an attempt to bring the Cadet Designated, JWC and domestic events all in line. Since the SF for Cadet Designated are somewhat arbitrary, and the SF for JWC are set by a USFA formula based on FIE rankings of Juniors, I am not sure how to develop a SF for NACs, but I'm sure I could if I wee asked to develop such a system.

Several points here:

• just as a matter of principle almost any problem has many solutions, not only one solution and even what you may think is the only solution may turn out to cause even bigger problems. So keep an open mind
• the moment you include international cadet designated events you introduce an element which is not measured the same way as the others. There are no FIE designated WC events for cadets so you can't measure their performance (as in junior or senior) and you risk confusing quantity (456 participants) with quality of fencing.
• cadet fencing is a developmental stage, like Y-14, with the only difference that it has one World Championship once a year. In fact all serious national federations I know of group together for developmental purposes cadet with Y-14, and as I said before, France does not even send cadets to the cadet world championship (they do send them the the European cadet championships).
• obviously I agree that the SF for cadet designated events is arbitrary and as such it should be eliminated.
• the problem of HOW to bring all types of events on a fairly uniform comparison in terms of SF is not easy and given the very different conditions governing each type of competition may be unsolvable. You seem to disagree.

Please note that SF has been applied to NACs in the past; I believe it was when some of our top fencers were away at the Pan Am Zonals, (I'm not sure about this) but I do not recall for which weapons, or how the SF was determined.

This is a different problem altogether and outside our initial discussion (we are talking cadet and cadet designated events).

What you refer to, I believe, are instances when because of overlap in the calendar, at some Div I events our top fencers were competing abroad at designated senior or GP events leaving the domestic NAC in the hands of the "general" population, so to speak. The winner of this "deserted" Div I NAC could rack 1000 points while the top fencers competing at the GP could struggle to earn points abroad. An adjustment therefore using the SF is understandable.

If you and others feel that the SF topic deserves a dedicated thread, we can do so. The topic is very complicated and any solution has pros and cons. We can also discuss what and how other important fencing federations broach this subject. But here at least since we are talking tangentially about a cadet event, let's limit the topic to cadets events only.

[pillow]

This was the ONLY comparison I made in my previous posts: international cadet designated events, i.e., international competitions ONLY for cadets and where ONLY cadets compete, to which our cadets go or are forced to go to get a boatload of "fake" points compared with points our cadets could have earned at NACs, either junior or Div I. Unless I didn't understand you I think we are in agreement on this.



Here you are changing and confusing the subject by introducing junior WC designated events.

Cadets can compete nationally in cadet NACs, junior NACs, Div I NACs. Internationally cadets can compete (for points) at international cadet designated international events (only for cadets), junior-A WC designated events, etc. The comparison I make is ONLY between international cadet designated events (with only cadets) and NACs events (junior and Div I). In other words should a cadet go and compete abroad in these third rate cadet events or fence here at USFA NACs (junior and Div I)? Other than the fact that these third rate events are given "fake" points, with or without the SF, the answer should be NO in the interest of the fencers, their families, AND the USFA.

I agree that junior-A designated WC events are stronger than junior NAC (and obviously cadet NAC) for various reasons, not the least that junior-A WC events have a max number of 12 fencers for each nation (other than those of the host country which can be up to about 20+). This in itself guarantees that you don't have 450+ entries with 320+ fencers from one country alone so there is a certain caliber of fencing. But "Cabries coup mondiale" (Cabries worldly cup) and other such events for and with cadets only are NOT junior-A WC and fall in terms of "fencing level" in between our NAC cadet and our NAC junior events, whether these international events have 400+ or 40 competitors.



You give me more credit than I deserve but I respectfully disagree with your opinion for the reasons mentioned above. To give to MF Cabries this year a 1.5 SF (if this is the case) is even more absurd than what was done last year when Cabries MF with 456 was given no SF and Cabries WF with 257 was given a 1.3 SF. No semi-serious fencing federation would have done what we did last year and a fortiori wouldn't even think of doing what you say we will do this year.



This is a different subject since you compare junior events, designated junior-A WC and junior NAC, and it should be discussed separately.



Several points here:

• just as a matter of principle almost any problem has many solutions, not only one solution and even what you may think is the only solution may turn out to cause even bigger problems. So keep an open mind
• the moment you include international cadet designated events you introduce an element which is not measured the same way as the others. There are no FIE designated WC events for cadets so you can't measure their performance (as in junior or senior) and you risk confusing quantity (456 participants) with quality of fencing.
• cadet fencing is a developmental stage, like Y-14, with the only difference that it has one World Championship once a year. In fact all serious national federations I know of group together for developmental purposes cadet with Y-14, and as I said before, France does not even send cadets to the cadet world championship (they do send them the the European cadet championships).
• obviously I agree that the SF for cadet designated events is arbitrary and as such it should be eliminated.
• the problem of HOW to bring all types of events on a fairly uniform comparison in terms of SF is not easy and given the very different conditions governing each type of competition may be unsolvable. You seem to disagree.

This is a different problem altogether and outside our initial discussion (we are talking cadet and cadet designated events).

What you refer to, I believe, are instances when because of overlap in the calendar, at some Div I events our top fencers were competing abroad at designated senior or GP events leaving the domestic NAC in the hands of the "general" population, so to speak. The winner of this "deserted" Div I NAC could rack 1000 points while the top fencers competing at the GP could struggle to earn points abroad. An adjustment therefore using the SF is understandable.

If you and others feel that the SF topic deserves a dedicated thread, we can do so. The topic is very complicated and any solution has pros and cons. We can also discuss what and how other important fencing federations broach this subject. But here at least since we are talking tangentially about a cadet event, let's limit the topic to cadets events only.

If we confine the discussion to Cadet Designated and Cadet NACs then things are simpler. I believe the Cadet Designated, such as Koblenz, Tauber, and Cabries are all harder than any Cadet NAC, and should be awarded as many points, with or without a SF, as the National Coaches choose to do. They are not third rate events.

[gladius]

If we confine the discussion to Cadet Designated and Cadet NACs then things are simpler. I believe the Cadet Designated, such as Koblenz, Tauber, and Cabries are all harder than any Cadet NAC, and should be awarded as many points, with or without a SF, as the National Coaches choose to do. They are not third rate events.

Yes, for practical reasons it would be better to confine THIS discussion to cadet designated events and the decision making process associated with them.

You choose to quote my lengthy posts but you have a problem in understanding what I write. I described SPECIFICALLY why the cadet event you cite are "third" rate. Not compared with cadet NACs which I admit are not as strong (400 points to the winner), but with junior and Div I NACs. So for the last time, I hope, Div I NAC (rate #1), junior NAC (rate #2), designated cadet (rate #3).

Accordingly, if cadet NAC (400 points), junior NAC (600 points) Div I NAC (1000 points), cadet designated should have between 400 and 600 points. You pick the number...between 400 and 600.

And the choice I discuss is between a cadet designated (abroad) and a junior or Div I NAC. If a cadet can qualify for a junior-A WC or higher event, by all mean s/he should go, if s/he can afford and earn all the points s/he deserves.

[teacup]

But ALL cadet designated, local European events, are given more points than domestic cadet, junior, Div I and even some Junior World Cups, even if the European event is VERY weak and Americans are just fencing other Americans. Not only are more points given but those points are in Group II which are in addition to domestic points.

ME/WE/WS/MS do not even have a strength factor component.

1st place cadet designated with 1.5 strength 1050 Group II points
1st place cadet designated with 1.3 strength 910 Group II points
1st place cadet Designated 700 Group II points

5th place Div I 700 Group I points
1st place Jr 600 Group I points
1st place cadet 400 Group I points
1st place Jr WC with a 1 strength factor 600 Group II points
9th place SR WC with a 1 strength factor 642 Group II points

So if a fencer has the means and time, why would they go to Des Moines when they can potentially earn more points at a weak European cadet designated event such as the cadet WS in Austria with 37 fencers of which 11 were Americans? When our own strong US fencers don't attend events here, it weakens our domestic events.

The large French and German cadet events with multiple pools have no or a lower age minimum than our domestic cadet events. All pools have an 80% or more cut. Therefore the early rounds have the very youngest as "cannon fodder". For the French Cabries event, the stronger fencers are given a bye into the DE's. It would be as if our Y12, Y14 and cadet events were combined into one big event with multiple pools and repechage. So it is debatable as to whether enlarging the event, makes the event stronger or just larger and longer. So are US points being awarded for skill or endurance?

[keith]

Residual cultural cringe?

[pillow]

Yes, for practical reasons it would be better to confine THIS discussion to cadet designated events and the decision making process associated with them.

You choose to quote my lengthy posts but you have a problem in understanding what I write. I described SPECIFICALLY why the cadet event you cite are "third" rate. Not compared with cadet NACs which I admit are not as strong (400 points to the winner), but with junior and Div I NACs. So for the last time, I hope, Div I NAC (rate #1), junior NAC (rate #2), designated cadet (rate #3).

Accordingly, if cadet NAC (400 points), junior NAC (600 points) Div I NAC (1000 points), cadet designated should have between 400 and 600 points. You pick the number...between 400 and 600.

And the choice I discuss is between a cadet designated (abroad) and a junior or Div I NAC. If a cadet can qualify for a junior-A WC or higher event, by all mean s/he should go, if s/he can afford and earn all the points s/he deserves.

I think the problem for me is your use of idiomatic English. No offense meant. Regardless of your intent, the term "third rate" usually means "low quality." Perhaps the term "third tier" would be better.

I also thought we were comparing Cadet Designated only to Cadet NACs, not Junior or Div I events. Sorry for the confusion.

[gladius]

I think the problem for me is your use of idiomatic English. No offense meant. Regardless of your intent, the term "third rate" usually means "low quality." Perhaps the term "third tier" would be better.

It is "third rate" when compared with junior or Div I NAC which is what I wrote from the beginning, trust me...

And of course they are also a third tier

These discussions are to share useful information, not to win an argument. I share what I know and everybody is free to listen, ignore, or refute. I wish I had had the benefit of someone else's experience, even though I was lucky most of the time.

One thing I can tell you and anybody else: don't drink the blue koolaid some self appointed or appointed "experts" try to pass on to you. Do your own research, ask questions, check, analyze, and compare the results. Talk to some people outside our system and ask them questions also. Observe what others do and do not do, and then make up your mind for what is right for you.

Ah, and on the issue of National Coaches credentials, check those also... thoroughly. You might be really surprised.

[fdad]

It is "third rate" when compared with junior or Div I NAC which is what I wrote from the beginning, trust me...

And of course they are also a third tier

These discussions are to share useful information, not to win an argument. I share what I know and everybody is free to listen, ignore, or refute. I wish I had had the benefit of someone else's experience, even though I was lucky most of the time.

One thing I can tell you and anybody else: don't drink the blue koolaid some self appointed or appointed "experts" try to pass on to you. Do your own research, ask questions, check, analyze, and compare the results. Talk to some people outside our system and ask them questions also. Observe what others do and do not do, and then make up your mind for what is right for you.

Ah, and on the issue of National Coaches credentials, check those also... thoroughly. You might be really surprised.

What I don't understand is ... you seem to believe "good" fencing countries don't mix Cadets with older fencers, but for US Cadet fencers you think that a strong Int'l Cadet-only event is 3rd rate compared to Division 1.

[SabreReedfrost]

What I don't understand is ... you seem to believe "good" fencing countries don't mix Cadets with older fencers, but for US Cadet fencers you think that a strong Int'l Cadet-only event is 3rd rate compared to Division 1.

That really depends on who ends up going to the cadet event. Div I is characteristically a strong event... and there is a great difference between the Cadet and Junior events.

[fdad]

That really depends on who ends up going to the cadet event. Div I is characteristically a strong event... and there is a great difference between the Cadet and Junior events.

There are two arguments:
a) Fencers should fence events against other fencers their age.
b) Fencers should fence in the strongest events.

I don't disagree with either of these, but I felt that gladius was trying to argue for "a" in one sentence, and against "a" due to "b" in another.