Why Div2 and Div3?

[kapunga]

Hi,
I was wondering what the rational behind have Div2 and Div3 events was? Not that I think it's a bad idea, just that it seems curious since the difference is merely the inclusion of one extra rating.

-Paul

[alpine]

Originally Posted by kapunga

I was wondering what the rational behind have Div2 and Div3 events was? Not that I think it's a bad idea, just that it seems curious since the difference is merely the inclusion of one extra rating.

From my experience, there is a marked difference in the skill level between Div3 and Div2 NAC events. Although the skill level at Div3 events can be a bit random, overall I believe the USFA has found the correct balance in the progression of divisions.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by alpine

From my experience, there is a marked difference in the skill level between Div3 and Div2 NAC events. Although the skill level at Div3 events can be a bit random, overall I believe the USFA has found the correct balance in the progression of divisions.

Yes, but how much of that is due to the presence of the C-level fencers, versus other factors (feel free to speculate on what those might be...).

The question is, why was this particular breakdown chosen? That is:
- Why not have each division consist of two of the six available ratings, with Div. III being E-and-Under, Div. II being C-and-D, and having Div. I be B-and-Up? Or
- Why have three divisions, as opposed to two - Div. I being C-and-Up (as it is now), and Div. II being D-and-Under (like the current Div. III)?

[oiuyt]

Overlap is useful to ease the transitions between levels, as well as to allow people to enter multiple events on a single trip at the national level. It also helps smooth the inaccuracies in our current classification system. Being off by a classification level is less likely to bar one from the optimal (from a development stand point) national-level event.

-B

[edew]

Maybe Div 2 should be B or lower and Div 3 should be E or lower. The C vs D is way too narrow.

Made sense 12 years ago when there were fewer fencers and if we ran an E-or-lower event at the national level, we might get only 30 fencers or so willing to hoof it out to a national event.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Overlap is useful to ease the transitions between levels, as well as to allow people to enter multiple events on a single trip at the national level. It also helps smooth the inaccuracies in our current classification system. Being off by a classification level is less likely to bar one from the optimal (from a development stand point) national-level event.

-B

Well, ok. I suppose that makes sense.

Though, since Div. III is completely overlapped by Div. II (as opposed to the relatively small overlap between Div. I and Div. II), it kinda makes Div. III redundant, does it not?

Also, now that I think about it... where does Div. IA fit into the rating breakdown? I know that the Athlete's Handbook says:

2.11.2. Division IA – Summer National Championships
This event offers high-level competition for fencers 13 years and older. This event is offered only at the Summer National Championships; no points are awarded. Division IA National Championships is always at least a Group A3 competition for the purposes of awarding classifications. See Appendix 2.2 for Classification Reference Chart.

Eligibility (age, classification, qualifying path)
Fencers must be 13 years old before January 1 of the current season or on the Junior NRPS AND

Consistent wording and exceptions

• Place in the top 25% (with a minimum of 8) at the current season Senior Section Championships (see Chapter 2.7 for detailed chart) OR
• Placed in top 8 at the previous season Division I-A National Championships OR
• Placed in top 4 at the previous season Division II National Championships OR
• Be the current season Under-19 Section Champion

Seeding
Fencers holding a classification in the weapon being fenced will be seeded according to their letter classification first and, within the same letter classification, by their numeric classification (i.e., the year in which they last won that letter classification). Fencers with the same letter and numeric classification are seeded randomly.

Format
• One round of pools
• 80% promoted out of pools
• No repêchage
• DE bout format: 15 touches in three 3-minute segments. In saber, bouts are fenced to 15
touches, with a 1-minute break when the first fencer reaches 8 touches.

Does this put Div. IA in theory in the same position relative to Div. I as Div. III is in, relative to Div. II (as Div. Ia, from the eligibility requirements, sounds like it would be composed wholly of A- and B-rated fencers)?
That is, does that give us the following breakdown:
- Div. III: D, E, U
- Div. II: C, D, E, U
- Div. I: A, B, C
- Div. IA: A, B

[fdad]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Well, ok. I suppose that makes sense.

Though, since Div. III is completely overlapped by Div. II (as opposed to the relatively small overlap between Div. I and Div. II), it kinda makes Div. III redundant, does it not?

Also, now that I think about it... where does Div. IA fit into the rating breakdown? I know that the Athlete's Handbook says:



Does this put Div. IA in theory in the same position relative to Div. I as Div. III is in, relative to Div. II (as Div. Ia, from the eligibility requirements, sounds like it would be composed wholly of A- and B-rated fencers)?
That is, does that give us the following breakdown:
- Div. III: D, E, U
- Div. II: C, D, E, U
- Div. I: A, B, C
- Div. IA: A, B

Div 1a is Open, A,B,C,D,E, and U (and sometimes Y and W)

[alpine]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Yes, but how much of that is due to the presence of the C-level fencers, versus other factors (feel free to speculate on what those might be...).

I think the higher difficulty in a Div2 event is mostly due to the presence of C rated fencers. Generally, C rated fencers will have more overall experience and be able to better handle more situations than ones with lower ratings and thus make better competitors.

The other factor that I believe makes a Div2 event more difficult is that Div2 events don't generally attract fencers until they have a few Div3 NACs under their belt. So, a given Div2 field is generally more experienced than a given Div3 field.

[kapunga]

Originally Posted by alpine

I think the higher difficulty in a Div2 event is mostly due to the presence of C rated fencers. Generally, C rated fencers will have more overall experience and be able to better handle more situations than ones with lower ratings and thus make better competitors.

In theory, shouldn't this be true of every rating? Is there a more severe jump in ability between D and C than there is in the lower ratings? Will this change now that you can no longer get a D from a tournament that doesn't have any rated fencers?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by alpine

I think the higher difficulty in a Div2 event is mostly due to the presence of C rated fencers. Generally, C rated fencers will have more overall experience and be able to better handle more situations than ones with lower ratings and thus make better competitors.

The other factor that I believe makes a Div2 event more difficult is that Div2 events don't generally attract fencers until they have a few Div3 NACs under their belt. So, a given Div2 field is generally more experienced than a given Div3 field.

Really? Given the travel/lodging expenses and planning requirements (organizing time off from work, and such) and the fact that they're held together at the same NACs, how many D's and E's, of those that will attend such events, show up for for Div. III and *not* Div. II, or vice versa? Wouldn't the overlap of D's, E's, and U's between the two events still be rather substantial?
As such, the differences of any random sampling of D's, E's, and U's from within the events should be negligible (or, if significant, still rather small), yes?

Also, to echo Kapunga's query:

In theory, shouldn't this be true of every rating? Is there a more severe jump in ability between D and C than there is in the lower ratings? Will this change now that you can no longer get a D from a tournament that doesn't have any rated fencers?

Why wouldn't it hold just as true when, say, comparing a B to a C as when comparing a C to a D? Or, comparing an A to a B, or a D to an E?

[seak]

Originally Posted by kapunga

In theory, shouldn't this be true of every rating? Is there a more severe jump in ability between D and C than there is in the lower ratings? Will this change now that you can no longer get a D from a tournament that doesn't have any rated fencers?

Sure and there's a jump in Div1 due to the A and B rated fencers. But generally speaking its much easier for newer fencers to get E's and even D's before they really have much tournament experience. The difference between an A and C in terms of ability to handle a tournament is not going to be as pronounced.

Also I think it would sort of make sense to eliminate U's from Div2, such that each event spanned three levels. (D,E,U; C,D,E; A,B,C)

[K O'N]

Originally Posted by seak

Sure and there's a jump in Div1 due to the A and B rated fencers. But generally speaking its much easier for newer fencers to get E's and even D's before they really have much tournament experience. The difference between an A and C in terms of ability to handle a tournament is not going to be as pronounced.

I wonder if this varies by weapon and region? Anyway, in my view there's a big jump from A to B, a smaller jump from B to C, a big jump from C to D, and not much from D to E to U. Thus I'm not sure Div II would be very different if you included Bs, but I do think there's a big difference between the current Div II and the current Div III.

Also I think it would sort of make sense to eliminate U's from Div2, such that each event spanned three levels. (D,E,U; C,D,E; A,B,C)

That's attractively symmetric, but it excludes U's from the C,D,E class for no good reason. The current Div II is a good place for U's to get experience. If I have U kids who can only fence one day I'd rather have them fence Div II than Div III, the fencing is better but still not out of reach.

Honestly, I like where the breaks are now.

K O'N

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by K O'N

I wonder if this varies by weapon and region? Anyway, in my view there's a big jump from A to B, a smaller jump from B to C, a big jump from C to D, and not much from D to E to U. Thus I'm not sure Div II would be very different if you included Bs, but I do think there's a big difference between the current Div II and the current Div III.

In foil:
Actually, my experience in my division (Michigan) is that there is a marked difference between each rating. Looking simply at tournament results, Es dominate Us, Ds dominate Es. There is some overlap where some Es are better than some Ds, but it is relatively small. These Es typically earn a higher rating by the end of the season. Our division has a small number of As and Bs, who are often fairly close in competitiveness. In between are the Cs, many of whom are very strong, but not yet strong enough to get a B (which is difficult because of the small numbers of A and B fencers). However, with the C level fencers, there is a great deal of stratification, as there are also some who are relatively weak and often beaten by Ds and even Es.

I think the current system works fairly well, although I would eliminate Us from the Div II is pressed to make a change. I've always seen DivIII as a developmental tournament, where fencers are simply there to get national experience. It allows newer fencers to be competitive, yet experience the marked differences in competing at a NAC or Nationals from local competition.

DivII is also developmental, but in a different way. Whereas in DivIII, practically any national experience is good experience, DivII allows fencers to experience different styles of fencing (as most will agree that there are regional or even local differences in coaching styles, as low as the club level for more visible clubs). It allows a fencer to develop skills and see weak points in their games which may not be as necessary for visible at a local level, where the predominant fencing styles may simply not put a fencer in a position to notice them.

In some regions, this kind of travel is difficult either because of isolation, or the lack of large enough regional tournaments to justify possible travel expenses. They provide a means to make fencers who are starting to be competitive more so.

[seven6ty]

The same reason we now have Y-12, Y-14, Cadets, Juniors, vet-40, vet-50, vet-60... To make more people feel good about themselves and earning a $3 dollar plastic medal, versus having to see how good of a fencer they actually are.

[hello?]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Overlap is useful to ease the transitions between levels, as well as to allow people to enter multiple events on a single trip at the national level.
-B

I think this is key. I like the overlap.

I like the current div 2 and 3.

However, I guess this thread might become practically irrelevant in February if the div 2/3 NACs go away and the only Div 2/3 national events are those held at the consolation "Nationals." (I hope that doesn't happen.)

[kapunga]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

The same reason we now have Y-12, Y-14, Cadets, Juniors, vet-40, vet-50, vet-60... To make more people feel good about themselves and earning a $3 dollar plastic medal, versus having to see how good of a fencer they actually are.

That's a bit cynical. I'd put it to you in reverse. Skilled athletes do not like competing in events they could crush. People DON'T feel good about themselves earning a $3 piece plastic medal at the expense of those who never really had a shot anyways.

Also, a lot of the thrill of competition comes from the process, not the result. That thrill does not come when you have either no shot at beating or no shot at losing to a particular opponent, therefor it stands to reason that enjoyment for everyone is maximized by separating according to skill.

[seven6ty]

Originally Posted by kapunga

That's a bit cynical. I'd put it to you in reverse. Skilled athletes do not like competing in events they could crush. People DON'T feel good about themselves earning a $3 piece plastic medal at the expense of those who never really had a shot anyways.

Also, a lot of the thrill of competition comes from the process, not the result. That thrill does not come when you have either no shot at beating or no shot at losing to a particular opponent, therefor it stands to reason that enjoyment for everyone is maximized by separating according to skill.

If you want to feel good about yourself, with minimal to no improvement in your skills, then sure, keep breaking it up until you have Y12-blonde haired, Y-12 brunettes, etc. But it doesn't help anybody to improve much. I'd much rather fence in a competition where I'm vastly outclassed, and learn a lot more, vs fencing a bunch of mediocre bouts and learn or develop very little. I don't think anybody benefits by reducing the number of highly skilled competitors, just to give a confidence boost to everyone else.

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

If you want to feel good about yourself, with minimal to no improvement in your skills, then sure, keep breaking it up until you have Y12-blonde haired, Y-12 brunettes, etc. But it doesn't help anybody to improve much. I'd much rather fence in a competition where I'm vastly outclassed, and learn a lot more, vs fencing a bunch of mediocre bouts and learn or develop very little. I don't think anybody benefits by reducing the number of highly skilled competitors, just to give a confidence boost to everyone else.

I disagree. If you go to a competition where you are vastly outclassed, you will get maybe 5 or six pool bouts, in which you will likely be destroyed. You won't learn anything, because the better fencers will limit their actions, scoring easily (probably with the same action every time) and trying not to waste energy or give away how they really fence to the other good fencers. You might win one, or even two. Then you'll get a low seed, maybe win a DE against another scrub, and then get annihilated again when you come up against someone decent. How does this teach anything?

I once fenced Jason Rogers at a NAC. I even scored two touches. Did I learn anything from it? Nope.

Now, watching a high level competition is another story.

[kapunga]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

If you want to feel good about yourself, with minimal to no improvement in your skills, then sure, keep breaking it up until you have Y12-blonde haired, Y-12 brunettes, etc. But it doesn't help anybody to improve much. I'd much rather fence in a competition where I'm vastly outclassed, and learn a lot more, vs fencing a bunch of mediocre bouts and learn or develop very little. I don't think anybody benefits by reducing the number of highly skilled competitors, just to give a confidence boost to everyone else.

There are at least two flaws in this line of thinking.

1) You don't develop mental toughness by getting smashed by an opponent. You may learn something, you may become a better fencer, you will NOT become a better competitor. How can you possibly learn the mental skills you need to deal with pressure situations, like a 4-4 bout when you are on the bubble of making it into a table or making a bye when you never even have a chance to get there? How can you possibly learn to deal with 14-14 to get into the semi-final bout when your opponent wants it just as much as you do, and this is your third tight bout in a row? These mental skills can't be fully taught, you need to experience these situations as much as possible. You don't learn them by getting smashed (or conversely by smashing your opponents), and it would be better for most fencers to have developed these skills far before they need to win a bout to get into the top 32 at a NAC against a higher seeded opponent. If you fence in a lot of opens as a weaker fencer, chances are you might run into these situations one, maybe two times in a tournament. If you fence in a more skill appropriate tournament, you can run into these five or six times.

2) What about the highly skilled competitors? They need to get better too. How can we expect our top fencers to be able to deal with fencing two,three, maybe four national champions in a DE bracket at the World Championships if we make them fence a bunch of vastly inferior fencers who want to get better all the time?

[seven6ty]

1. You need to develop the skills to get the score to 14-14 first... Before you start worrying about what to do at that point.

2. Advanced fencers certainly aren't going to improve any more by spending the day at home, rather than out at a tournament.