How to allow for Old USFA classifications

[jjefferies]

A minor detail for some but this past weekend there was a senior women's epee event in the Bay Cup series. One woman was known to some of the fencers but not the hosts, as an "A" three years ago. My understanding is that she had not been a USFA member last year (perhaps longer) and had to signup for USFA membership before fencing. The harried registration - imagine that you're wading through registering 70 odd fencers (three events) and people are waiting - naturally couldn't find her classification for last year and so she came in as a "U".

It was understood that she should probably have a degraded "A" possibly a "B" classification but how could the registration have obtained that information? Again my understanding is that the woman was not pre-registered.

Are there lists of people with classifications who are not members? For future reference inquiring minds would like to know.
thanks

[oiuyt]

Are there lists of people with classifications who are not members? For future reference inquiring minds would like to know.
thanks

People who had memberships that expired 7/31/2009 are listed (with classifications) on the US Fencing website. I don't know of any publicly-accessible official listing of members from before that.

People that were not members last season and rejoin at the site of a tournament are currently a problem if they don't bring proof (such as an expired membership card, which they may no longer possess) of classification to the tournament.

-B

[noodle]

People who had memberships that expired 7/31/2009 are listed (with classifications) on the US Fencing website. I don't know of any publicly-accessible official listing of members from before that.

People that were not members last season and rejoin at the site of a tournament are currently a problem if they don't bring proof (such as an expired membership card, which they may no longer possess) of classification to the tournament.

-B

membership database is online now, and i know for a fact that it is possible to go look for old members in the database. can't we implement this to search out old ratings? that or just put this dog to rest by saying if you're inactive for a year your rating dies with you?

[fdad]

membership database is online now, and i know for a fact that it is possible to go look for old members in the database. can't we implement this to search out old ratings? that or just put this dog to rest by saying if you're inactive for a year your rating dies with you?

I am not sure who is served, other than the BC, by throwing away old ratings. The fencers that get into a pool with a U rated fencer that is really an A aren't getting a fair deal. I know of at least one case where a women purposely registered under her married name and "neglected" mention that she was a B under her maiden name.

[Jvanhousen]

I am not sure who is served, other than the BC, by throwing away old ratings. The fencers that get into a pool with a U rated fencer that is really an A aren't getting a fair deal. I know of at least one case where a women purposely registered under her married name and "neglected" mention that she was a B under her maiden name.

I wonder what the motivation would be to put yourself in a more difficult pool by 'neglecting' to mention a higher rating?

We had an epee tourney the other day where an A rated foilist that fences epee at the club, but not competitions, entered and was seeded near the bottom of the 28 entries, and ended up placing 2nd. Some of the younger fencers in his pool also probably thought that was unfair. There was a time when an A gave you a C in the other 2 weapons.

[oiuyt]

I wonder what the motivation would be to put yourself in a more difficult pool by 'neglecting' to mention a higher rating?

Devil's Advocate: If the purpose of a tournament is high-quality training bouts then massively underseeding oneself results in an extra such pool bout.

Playing games dropping touches and/or pool bouts could, similarly, gain one or more additional high-quality DE bouts, depending on how good one is at predicting and then manipulating the tableau seeding.

Note that while I routinely use tournaments as a source of training and as a source of enjoyment (said enjoyment largely coming from the types of high-level bouts that could be maximized through the use of such strategems), I do NOT actually advocate such behavior and have not, myself, used it.

-B

[mfp]

It was understood that she should probably have a degraded "A" possibly a "B" classification but how could the registration have obtained that information?

By asking the fencer or others?

Initially seeding someone last and as a U who was on a Div I university team and (iirc) fenced in the NCAA Championships multiple times might have been a slight underestimation. Even before considering the multiple Jr and Sr US Pentathlon National titles.

I would have recommended initially seeding her as a B something, running the event and then following up with USFA member services afterwards to get their word on her classification and then used that to determine the classification for the event itself.

[edew]

I'm surprised that people, especially from the host club, wouldn't know. It would make it a B event instead of the C event that it was (don't know why it wasn't a B event nonetheless, considering that 2Bs or higher and 2Cs or higher were in the top-8 and another 2 Ds or higher were present).

[mfp]

(don't know why it wasn't a B event nonetheless, considering that 2Bs or higher and 2Cs or higher were in the top-8 and another 2 Ds or higher were present).

As seeded, it was short one D or higher to qualify as a B1.

[Tomas N]

Being "underrated" in one of the dozen or more tournaments that serious fencers attend over the course of the season is no big deal. Fencing someone whose actual skill differs dramatically from his or her rating happens all the time. It really only negatively affects the higher rated fencers in the pool, who expected to get an easy bout against a U but ended up fencing a much better fencer.

That being said, it would be an improvement if the system allowed us to retrieve old ratings.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Being "underrated" in one of the dozen or more tournaments that serious fencers attend over the course of the season is no big deal.

It is, however, somewhat more of a big deal when an "underrated" fencer decides they want to fence in a developmental tournament, and fences an E event or something like that with a reasonable ranking. If it's an open, the best fencer there is the one who beats everyone else-- they may have a hard path or an easy path, but it's an obvious path. But when you show up aiming to beat everyone without a rating, and you also have to beat someone who's a D or whatever... While perhaps not actually that important from a global perspective, it's not really truth in advertising.

The USFA should come up with a meaningful, easy to obtain list that contains everyone who has a rating that is in effect. That list ought to be the final arbiter. Organizers ought to be responsible for checking that list. If those two things were universally true, we could then have a meaningful conversation about how people who purposely misrepresent themselves to change the playing field ought to be punished. Right now, it's just not clear how many of these people are confused, and how many are trying to use it for gain.

[jjefferies]

By asking the fencer or others?

Initially seeding someone last and as a U who was on a Div I university team and (iirc) fenced in the NCAA Championships multiple times might have been a slight underestimation. Even before considering the multiple Jr and Sr US Pentathlon National titles.

I would have recommended initially seeding her as a B something, running the event and then following up with USFA member services afterwards to get their word on her classification and then used that to determine the classification for the event itself.

Reread it Mike. Theresa was working hard and had no way or time to confirm it either way. If it were possible to retrieve the information it might still be worth following up. But so far as I've yet learned we've no way to make that determination. And your way would have set the event up to have to be reduced and hard won classifications rescinded.

J.

[mfp]

And your way would have set the event up to have to be reduced and hard won classifications rescinded.

Let me put the important bit you seem to have missed in bold for you:

then following up with USFA member services afterwards to get their word on her classification and then use that to determine the classification for the event itself.

Make particular note of the word "afterwards", i.e. as in after the event when the results are being audited before submission of any classification changes.

Since a quick google or archive.org search shows previous results indicating the fencer would still be at a minimum of a "D" currently even with two classification decay drops, that would be enough bump up the event's classification level if, say the division chair, bothered to ... follow up with USFA member services afterwards to get their word on her classification and then used that to determine the classification for the event itself.

Have you done that? The member services people have been very helpful with such issues in the past.

If not, you'd look to be the one setting the event up to be reduced from what it should be.

You are the problem you have warned us about

[Tomas N]

It is, however, somewhat more of a big deal when an "underrated" fencer decides they want to fence in a developmental tournament, and fences an E event or something like that with a reasonable ranking.

I'm not sure what the thrill is of winning an unrated tournament if you're in fact an A, but if there are people trying to game the system in order to do this, they need some intense counselling.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm not sure what the thrill is of winning an unrated tournament if you're in fact an A, but if there are people trying to game the system in order to do this, they need some intense counselling.

It's even funnier when you have at least a D, fence in an unrated, and still get your ass kicked.

But I agree about the intense counseling.

[Fiat Slug]

A minor detail for some but this past weekend there was a senior women's epee event in the Bay Cup series. One woman was known to some of the fencers but not the hosts, as an "A" three years ago. My understanding is that she had not been a USFA member last year (perhaps longer) and had to signup for USFA membership before fencing. The harried registration - imagine that you're wading through registering 70 odd fencers (three events) and people are waiting - naturally couldn't find her classification for last year and so she came in as a "U".

It was understood that she should probably have a degraded "A" possibly a "B" classification but how could the registration have obtained that information? Again my understanding is that the woman was not pre-registered.

Are there lists of people with classifications who are not members? For future reference inquiring minds would like to know.
thanks

During the Bay Cup events that I attended, there's is usualy an appeals period after the initial seedings are posted. Could one of the fencers who knew this woman have appealed?

[jjefferies]

Since a quick google or archive.org search shows previous results indicating the fencer would still be at a minimum of a "D" currently even with two classification decay drops, that would be enough bump up the event's classification level if, say the division chair, bothered to ... follow up with USFA member services afterwards to get their word on her classification and then used that to determine the classification for the event itself.

Have you done that? The member services people have been very helpful with such issues in the past.

If not, you'd look to be the one setting the event up to be reduced from what it should be.

You are the problem you have warned us about

Mike you are an irritant. The Division secretary was asked to check it out the day after the tournament. And has been speaking with the USFA offices. I was asking how the club might have learned before hand.

[Wafath]

I have to agree with jjefferies here. This is a long-existing hole in how ratings are to be handled by local tournament organizers.

If USFA went with AskFRED, this problem could (probably) have disappeared. We would have one authoritative source for a persons rating.

This problem needs to be fixed, and soon.

W

[griffindm]

I'm not sure what the thrill is of winning an unrated tournament if you're in fact an A, but if there are people trying to game the system in order to do this, they need some intense counselling.

We had an expression for this (fencing vastly under-skilled opponents), which I also experienced when coming back from over a decade away from competition. It was a C & Under event, but was mostly composted of unrated fencers.

We called it "clubbing baby seals". It was about as much fun. I never would have went if I knew it would be that bad.

[dli]

If USFA went with AskFRED, this problem could (probably) have disappeared. We would have one authoritative source for a persons rating.
W

AskFred is hardly an authoritative source for ratings since it allows fencers to update their rating to anything they want.

For the scenario in question, one can simply downgrade his/her rating to U in AskFred and there will be no way to tell what their true rating is.