So I haven't been in the US for a few years, and maybe I'm a little behind on news, but didn't there used to be a whole lot more Div. I NACs? There's like only two now?
Someone able to explain this NAC abduction?
There's three Div I NACs (restricted to fencers rated C & above) this year--Columbus, San Diego, and Overland Park. There's two II/III NACs (highest rating allowed a C)--Orlando just past, and Arlington. So there are actually more NACs.
The first poster is correct. There used to be 4-6 Div I competitions during the season and these competitions decided the National teams for Div I.
Now, the U.S.F.A. has less Div I NAC's so that its fencers will go to more World Cups and the team will be decided on 2 NAC results and World Cup points.
It was a smart move, because now we have many more fencers going to world cups and because of this we are moving up in the rankings of the world.
If what you most care about is international results for a few other people, then it was a "smart move". If you care more about being able to fence more yourself, which is I daresay why most of us got into the sport in the first place, then it rather sucks...
The goal of the U.S.A. fencing team is to do as well as possible internationally. In order for them to do that they need to be free to go to World Cups instead of fencing the same people over and over again in redundent competitions.
Nobody wants to take away your ability to fence competitions, but the highest level of competitions should be built towards building a strong international program. There are plenty of Div. II/III, local competitions and such for you to fence in, so I don't think that there would be less competitions for you to fence in.
The U.S.F.A has also tried to create more regional tournaments for just the reason you sight: that the elite fencers are a small number and everyone should have an opoortunity to fence competitions.
But, i think it was a good idea to limit the number of these national Div I competitions. Fencing in 6 national competitions doesn't make sense when you have to go overseas and already spend a ton of money to make the team. It does make sense for all, but nothing is ideal or perfect.
Last edited by fencer-person; 11-12-2002 at 12:30 AM..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't make the team by going overseas, you go overseas once you've made the team, yes? Otherwise there wouldn't be USFA restrictions on people going to World Cups.
Again, if it's your contention that Div I NACs are solely there for the benefit of the elite---in which case oughtn't they be restricted to As?---then having fewer of them and taking the elite abroad makes sense. Most people fencing them currently however have little chance of ever going to a World Cup overseas or making the team. Like the rest of us, they---the majority---would be better off with more chances to fence, I think.
This year there are a whopping two Div II/III NACs. Not enough fencing for my tastes, by a long shot...
According to the athlete's handbook, the top 16 in the rankings are eligible to be entered by the USFA into European World Cups. In order to make a US team, you need to have results from World Cups. The reason that the USFA has a restriction on people entering World Cups is two-fold: first, the FIE places a restriction on the number of fencers a country can enter in a World Cup and the USFA uses the ranking for selection purposes, and secondly, the World Cups are at a higher level of fencing, and the USFA has to be assured that the fencer entered is capable of handling the level of fencing.
Restricting Division I tournaments to only As would not help develop the future fencers for the team -- by restricitng to C and higher, you help the next generation of fencers to develop by exposing them to the fencers who are already competing internationally.
You are able to fence in the Division I NACs, there are the Division II/III NACs, and many regions and/or sections have their own circuits. In addition, you have your local division competition schedule, plus division competitions in neighboring divisions to attend. From this selection, I can readily see that there are 20 available competitions for me -- that means an opportunity to compete about half the year -- isn't that a large enough amount of competitions?? We have a system that in fact gives you more competitions to compete in than other countries (for example, Holland only has a handful; France only has 9). Why are you not choosing to avail yourself to all the opportunities to compete?
In addition, the USFA does not restrict you from fencing overseas -- you can also fence in the satellite circuit of the FIE, the French Circuit and the German Circuit or in any other country's events if you choose to do so. You are not limited in the number of events -- why do you think that you are? If expense of traveling is your response, you can abandon that, because I find cheaper airfare and hotel rates to go to Europe than to the NACs -- and you have very many local and regional / sectional events that don't even require airfare to attend.
I don't think the problem for US fencers to go to World Cups is that there are too many NACs.
I think it's mostly an issue of time and money.
Many European fencers have a major advantage when they can drive or take a train to a World Cup and sometimes even get back home the same day or next morning.
Something seems awefully problematic in "forcing" fencers to go the World Cups by eliminating other competitive options.
It makes me wonder if the USFA doesn't have other, more sinister, motives. . .
(Am I the only one who thinks that there should be an alien smiley? You know, the kind that's always abducting people.)
Colorado division has a whopping 6 competitions a year plus divisionals. The only ones with an A2 rating typically draw about 6 As and 10 or so Bs. It's a ***** for a C to finish in the top 3 in that kind of contest. We might award one or two B's a year in our division. That and 2 NACs don't give much opportunity for someone to fence. Outside of local competitions, the Div II NACs give at most 12 fencers/year/weapon the chance to earn a B, and a B is what will be required to fence in the Div I's as of next year. This will lead to a nast stratification of the talent pool to the northeast and california, where there are more opportunities to earn a rating high enough to compete.
If the goal is for the elite fencers to be able to train against each other without ever having to dirty themselves by fencing lowly Cs and Ds, fine. But I'm not sure where USFA thinks the next round of elite fencers is going to come from if non of the lowly can ever gain experience in fecing quality fencers. Though this may preserve the talent we have, this stands to be very detrimental to the DEVELOPMENT of new talent.
As far as I know, Div I NACs require a "C" or higher, not "B" or higher. And there's no plans to make it "B" for next season, AFAIK.
Colorado, unfortunately, doesn't have enough fencers to bring in more competitions. Still, the fallacy that people make is that a LARGE competition means more fencing. Well, more fencing, overall (tough on the bout committee and the referees), but the typical fencer still won't do more than the usual 5 or 6 pool bouts and 2-4 fifteen DE bouts. A few will do more than 4 DE bouts, but the vast majority will fence fewer than 3.
In the Bay Area, some fencers may have up to 24 competitions throughout the year. That would be for youth-14 aged fencer starting the season with a D-classification. They can compete in six events in Youth-14 foil, junior foil, category-2 foil, and open foil.
(Category-2 foil is essentially a C event, with C<yy-2> as the highest starting classification. Fencers who compete in the Category-2 who subsequently earn a higher classification during the course of the season are allowed to continue competing in the Category-2. This distinguishes our Category-2 event from Div II/III NACs: once you earn a higher classification, you can't compete in the Div II/III NAC anymore.)
The goal, of course, for your division officers is to determine what the needs are, and then provide competitions for those fencers.
Originally posted by sean Colorado division has a whopping 6 competitions a year plus divisionals. The only ones with an A2 rating typically draw about 6 As and 10 or so Bs. It's a ***** for a C to finish in the top 3 in that kind of contest. We might award one or two B's a year in our division. That and 2 NACs don't give much opportunity for someone to fence. Outside of local competitions, the Div II NACs give at most 12 fencers/year/weapon the chance to earn a B, and a B is what will be required to fence in the Div I's as of next year. This will lead to a nast stratification of the talent pool to the northeast and california, where there are more opportunities to earn a rating high enough to compete.
If the goal is for the elite fencers to be able to train against each other without ever having to dirty themselves by fencing lowly Cs and Ds, fine. But I'm not sure where USFA thinks the next round of elite fencers is going to come from if non of the lowly can ever gain experience in fecing quality fencers. Though this may preserve the talent we have, this stands to be very detrimental to the DEVELOPMENT of new talent.
We seem to have an abundance of fencers who complain about the lack of competitions in their division, but as noted, a dearth of people running competitions in those divisions. hey, here's an idea: RUN THE COMPETITIONS YOURSELF! Divisional schedules are made within the division. it is NOT the USFA's fault that Colorado or Texas do not run enough competitions. I must admit that I happen to be lucky enough to be within 2-4 hours driving time of the center of 6 divisions, and can fence at least once every weekend if I want. however, I have also run competitions, and its really not that difficult. So, maybe you should run some competitions at your club. As for the ability to earn B's, of those 6 divisions, only 1 consistently hands out A's.
As for the number of B's given at a national level, what makes you think that somebody who can't place top 4 at a Div II deserves to fence in a Div I??? The idea is that Div I serves as an elite competition. I personally agree with this philosophy.
EDEW: According to the latest USFA newsletter, they are recommending limiting to only B's and A's next year. This does NOT mean it will happen, but it is being proposed.
Carrying on the idea from Edew that there are soo many competitions for someone who is a 14 and Under fencer:
Shouldn't there be the same kind of limit for World Cup as there are for USFA Competitions as in that only 4 World Cups would count?
For a youth fencer to get on a team, they have to either win which is very difficult or fence every world cup competition there is. It breaks down for a Junior fencer to have to go to 3-6 Junior World Cups and then at least 6 US competitions. I know one elite fencer who had 22 trips scheduled for her competition year.
That works out to competition every four weeks (or in the elite fence's case every two weeks) if not sooner. With school and all that growing up involves, like sleep, fencing is a difficult and expensive sport.
I had to wonder when I read Ivan Lee's article in American Fencing. He was lamenting missing holidays and birthdays so he could be on planes and going to meets. While I understood his point, (that was when men's team saber was not going to be in the Olympics) I think he does not realize how good he has it.
His parents do not pay for his traveling. He does not have to weigh the cost of every trip. He has potential and can use it and does not have to worry about his dream bankrupting his parents.
The point count should be limited to the four highest finishes for Juniors like the USFA for international competitions.
This is an issue that need serious consideration by the USFA and the FIE.
__________________ A friend will bail you out of jail,
a true friend will help you hide the body...: )
Originally posted by edew . Still, the fallacy that people make is that a LARGE competition means more fencing. Well, more fencing, overall (tough on the bout committee and the referees), but the typical fencer still won't do more than the usual 5 or 6 pool bouts and 2-4 fifteen DE bouts. A few will do more than 4 DE bouts, but the vast majority will fence fewer than 3.
An excellent argument for more tournaments! The only way to get more fencing is by fencing more often.
Quote:
Originally posted by nahouw The reason that the USFA has a restriction on people entering World Cups is two-fold: first, the FIE places a restriction on the number of fencers a country can enter in a World Cup and the USFA uses the ranking for selection purposes, and secondly, the World Cups are at a higher level of fencing, and the USFA has to be assured that the fencer entered is capable of handling the level of fencing.
Actually, the reason is that the FIE requires the USFA to provide a certain number of officials for every so many US fencers in a World Cup. The more US fencers go, even if they pay their own way, the more it costs the USFA, therefore. And as usual the USFA is unwilling to "waste" its resources ( that is, the resources it gets largely from the rank and file who are so low on its list of priorities ) on any fencer it has not annointed as "worthy".
Quote:
Restricting Division I tournaments to only As would not help develop the future fencers for the team -- by restricitng to C and higher, you help the next generation of fencers to develop by exposing them to the fencers who are already competing internationally.
That you do, that you do. You would help them even more if their exposure were increased---say, by having more NACs. No?
Quote:
You are able to fence in the Division I NACs, there are the Division II/III NACs, and many regions and/or sections have their own circuits.
Unfortunately, these are in many cases mutually exclusive. As and Bs are limited to Div I only. Cs are excluded from Div III. Ds and below are excluded from Div I. So one cannot simply add up all the NACs and say "Hey, there are plenty". One has to add up only the ones for which you are eligible, as opposed to the old system in which anyone could fence in any NAC....
Quote:
In addition, you have your local division competition schedule, plus division competitions in neighboring divisions to attend.
Heh, don't get me started on my Division...
I live in a Division where to my knowledge there are only a handful of sabre fencers, none of whom fence at more than middling C level ( and none of these are rated above a D, as we cannot meet that magic minimum number of entrants ). In the average competition 5 or less typically show up. Most of the clubs have in fact begun to omit sabre entirely from the competitions they sponsor for this reason.
The only way for me to get more fencing is to travel quite long distances...which I do, up to a point, but even so, only one neighboring Division holds competitions strong enough to make the game worth the candle, so exclusive of NACs I get to compete maybe once a month. Add two NACs and this does not noticeably increase the total.
Quote:
From this selection, I can readily see that there are 20 available competitions for me -- that means an opportunity to compete about half the year -- isn't that a large enough amount of competitions??
If you are saying that as long as your opportunities are good no one in other circumstances has any cause for complaint, you are right, I suppose.
Quote:
We have a system that in fact gives you more competitions to compete in than other countries (for example, Holland only has a handful; France only has 9). Why are you not choosing to avail yourself to all the opportunities to compete?
I have a friend who moved to Europe for about a year, just to fence. He was competing about every weekend, sometimes more than once. With Eurail and the compact size of Europe this is possible. Try this in the western US. ( France is what, about the size of Texas? One state? Holland, Belgium, Germany right next door and England just across the Channel? A better comparison than France to the US in terms of numbers of tournaments would be the EU to the US. )
Quote:
If expense of traveling is your response, you can abandon that, because I find cheaper airfare and hotel rates to go to Europe than to the NACs -- and you have very many local and regional / sectional events that don't even require airfare to attend.
Fencing is the only sport where rec. athletes demand and expect to fence the elite. In all other sports, there are divisions that one must work his/her way up to compete against the best.
The current USFA format for NAC's is mimicing that progression. Start off with locals, then move to regionals and Div 2/3 NAC's. And once you conquer those, you can move to the elite levels, DIv 1 and "A" Cups.
It makes sense to restrict these tournaments to people of the appropiate level. Allowing a complete novice to enter a div. 1 NAC or world cup is a waste of time, money and resources. Better the novice paid his/her dues, work hard and show up at the elite tournament with more experience and come away having learned something besides 'the top fencers hit me hard and fast.'
For the elite fencers, 3 NAC's is great, not only for money, but time and not getting burnt out. Remember, most fencer's have jobs or school. For the less experienced, fencer's, the more Div 2/3 NAC's, regional events, and locals the better.
Yes, the USFA is required to provide referees: if more than 5 fencers then 1 referee; if more than 9, then 2 referees.
However, the quota of entrants per country into a European World Cup as set by the FIE is that only 8 fencers per country are permitted, plus how many fencers you have in the top 32 at the end of the prior season. You can see the FIE website for this year's quotas -- here's the link: http://www.fie.ch/federation/Circ%20...02002-2003.pdf
Therefore, the USFA has the following quotas for this season:
For the Seniors, WS - 12; ME - 9; and WF, WE, MF, MS - 8
For the Juniors, MS, - 13; ME - 12; WS - 11; WF - 9; and WE, MF - 8
If you read the athlete's handbook, you will see these quotas listed on the schedules for each weapon (page 3-4 and 3-5; A-9 through A-19)
So, for the majority of events (Senior and Junior combined) the USFA will only need to send 1 referee, because the quota is set at 8 -- the only time we have to send an additional referee is for Women's Sabre (Senior and Junior); and Junior's ME & MS.
Referee cost isn't the USFA's issue of why European World Cups are restricted to the top 16 in the ranking -- it is because the FIE sets quotas on how many fencers they will permit the USFA to send.
OK, if that is the case I stand corrected. However, that is not how the USFA explained the process in the beginning---they said that people would not be permitted to go abroad without permission because it would cost too much to send extra officials. When was this quota system instituted?
It's clearly a combination of reasons -- not wanting non-elites at a WC and not wanting to pay for additional refs, and the hard cap of 8 fencers. If it were just the quota system then the USFA would allow open WC entry and select the top 8 who wished to go. Even if none of the top 16 are interested (and therefore adding 1-4 entries doesn't even obligate the USFA to any additional ref costs) it is nearly impossible for someone not in the top 16 to be entered. For domestic-hosted WCs the USFA has instituted a limit that all entrants must be on the US points list.
Ahmed Yilla took 63rd last year in MS in Peabody (earning 2 FIE points) and is not currently eligible to fence the same event this year in NYC. He's on the FIE points standings but not the US standings. Looking at myself, I've never been on the US points standings. I've fenced the WC in Peabody the past 2 years, each time going 3-3 in pools. I finished 71st 2 years ago and 75th last year, so barely out of advancing to the second day and FIE points. Am I outclassed at this event? According to the results not really. Yet unless I do better at NACs this year I won't have this opportunity in New York.
Okay, those are special cases and examples of individuals that get screwed can be found for nearly any rule/policy change. Now look at how much more restrictive limiting to the top 16 is instead of limiting to the points list (top 65ish?). Granted the USFA takes on additional cost when moving from 4 to 5 entries. Granted there's a hard limit of 8 entries. How many WCs do we send fewer than 4 people to? Shouldn't those "free" slots be available to fencers that want them? Even if the policy of limiting to points holders is continued, why the additional limit of just the top 16? The USFA already has to have the policy that selection priority is based on ranking (what if 12 of the top 16 all wanted to go to the same event). So just extend it to any points holder.
Going back to the issue of NACs. Assuming that one is a C-caliber fencer that due to division size can't get enough people to get more than a D rating. Okay, div I NACs are currently out. That still leaves Sectionals, 2 Div II NACs, 2 Div III NACs, Div II Nat'l Championships, Div III Champs, Div IA Champs, and several events that almost might as well be mini-NACs such as Duel in the Desert. C's are readily available in these events which would then replace the 3 div III events with 3 div I events.
I live in an area with massive amounts of available competition at a range of levels from suitable for beginners up to tournaments that are expected to award A's every year. That said, my original sabre C was earned at a NAC, my foil C was earned at a NAC, and my sabre A was earned at nationals. Frequently the best place to earn a rating is at national events. There are defiantely ratings available. The rating system is (more than) a bit screwy and rewards single-day best effort. Okay, there are 7 national opportunities each year to earn a C and get into the div I NACs. If you go to all 7 and fail to make the required level, perhaps you really shouldn't be a C. If you do, great, the extra hoop has extended the time when you couldn't fence div I by perhaps as much as a year. Meanwhile instead of fencing a div I NAC you got to fence a div III NAC instead.
One of the keys to the current system is maximizing useful bouts. Useful bouts are those fenced at or slightly above one's level. It does very little good for an E to go into a div I epee NAC. They'd have a lot of trouble even knowing what it is that they're doing wrong and/or how to get anything out of the experience. Meanwhile their opponents would get nothing out of the bout. Further the opponents wouldn't even fence an E the way they'd fence another top level fencer, so the E doesn't even get to "see what it feels like to go up against the best." What does the E gain? What does fencing in general gain? Why SHOULD we cloud the issue and use general-purpose NACs rather than ones tailored to provide the maximum amount of benefit to everyone involved.
Inq- if you want more NACs go find the things like Duel in the Desert. Find the large "regional" events. Look for things like the Heartland Circuit or the Mid-Atlantic Circuit events. Go to them. Go to the Canadian Elite Circuit events (2 each year are open entry). Unless you're going to these NAC-like events (okay, frequently smaller, but as EDew pointed out, half of all fencers fence 5-6 pool bouts and 1 DE, having 100 other people do the same doesn't increase YOUR fencing at all) complaints about too few NACs are unjustified. Will these require plane tickets? Yes, for most of us, so do NACs. Unless you're willing to fly to NAC-like things why should you want/get more NACs?
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Originally posted by Inquartata OK, if that is the case I stand corrected. However, that is not how the USFA explained the process in the beginning---they said that people would not be permitted to go abroad without permission because it would cost too much to send extra officials. When was this quota system instituted?
The quotas were set sometimes back. It was actually set by the Europeans against other european countries. What happened was that, prior to the quotas, the host country would stack the tournament with hundreds of fencers, and there's a good chance that your top fencers will have several fellow countrymen in the same pool (or meet in the DEs), those fellow countrymen would just roll over and die for the top fencer, protecting them as they march up the DE table, or pools as in the last generation.
So, to prevent what would be the fencing equivalent of cyclists protecting their leader in the Tour de France (or other races), the FIE made this rule, strictly for WCs held in Europe. Because most countries can't afford to send fifteen or twenty fencers to other continents, there isn't as much of that rule in other continents.
Originally posted by oiuyt Assuming that one is a C-caliber fencer that due to division size can't get enough people to get more than a D rating. Okay, div I NACs are currently out. That still leaves Sectionals, 2 Div II NACs, 2 Div III NACs, Div II Nat'l Championships, Div III Champs, Div IA Champs, and several events that almost might as well be mini-NACs such as Duel in the Desert
A small quibble here: I would not view the Div II/III NACs, which are always held in conjunction, to be two separate competitions. To all intents and purposes if you can and do enter both they are one tournament. Otherwise you might aswell say that if you go to one of these and fence two weapons and an age category event as well you have six or eight tournaments. If it's all on one weekend, to me it's one event. Given that, 2 Div II/III NACs, Sectionals ( often poorly attended in my section or, what is worse, unpredictably attended---the only thing worse than travelling to a distant event is arriving to find yourself one of five entrants ), Nationals ( which I often skip simply because they WILL insist on spacing events out so that you have to take the entire week off from work plus pay for lodgings for a week---if Div II, III and Veterans were even approximately contiguous it would be one things, but it's always Tuesday, Friday, Sunday or some such nonsense ), and I usually try to hit the DITD and the LBI because it's fairly predictable that there'll be at least 15 entrants and usually a lot more. That makes six whole weekends in the entire season.
Quote:
Frequently the best place to earn a rating is at national events. There are defiantely ratings available.
Available technically, yes. In reality? It varies. For instance, in Orlando I had a good shot in Div III---I beat Teddy Levitt, who finished 2nd, in the pool, and...I forget his name, but I beat whoever came in 8th Monday in my first DE in Div II.
( Unfortunately, I encountered referee difficulties on the way, always a danger, but the effect of one such incident is magnified if you have fewer events to go to---it's a matter of number of attempts at times ).
OTOH, Reno last year---well, many of the the fencers in both events were head and shoulders higher in quality than at Orlando, to the point where I thought they rightly belonged in Div I...either they came from Divisions where competitions were so tough that C and even B fencers couldn't get so much as an E, or their coaches were holding them out for a NAC so they could make a big entrance, or....something. You had people like Toscani in Div III---please.
In the regional events, you also get oddities. Such as one sabre A electing not to compete in the LBI, dropping the rating of the competition and accordingly the number and rank of the ratings awarded. Or having a highly top-loaded field---I had one finish once where the only people placing higher were As and Bs, all the Cs and a couple of Bs winding up lower than me, yet this was still only good enough to re-earn a D.
Hmm, this sounds like a lot of whining, doesn't it? Not at all what I'm trying to convey. Ratings are distinctly secondary to me, way behind having more opportunities to fence---which is why I decry this continuing segregation by ratings, the limitations of which we all recognize. Ideally, I want to go to every single NAC, whether I have a shot or not, and regardless of whether it tires the poor referees a little more. I realize, though, that others have different priorities ( like not sullying the hands of the elites with having to fence duffers, er, I mean, preparing them for foreign competition by whetting them only on the best stones! ).
Quote:
Meanwhile instead of fencing a div I NAC you got to fence a div III NAC instead.
My whole point. Why should it have to be "instead"?
Actually I would be less vexed by the instead if there were more than a piddling two of them each year...
Quote:
One of the keys to the current system is maximizing useful bouts. Useful bouts are those fenced at or slightly above one's level.
I'm not sure I agree with this, at least not bilaterally. I have always gotten the most, learning-wise, out of fencing people MUCH better than me. However, I know the same may not be true of the superior fencer.
Quote:
Inq- if you want more NACs go find the things like Duel in the Desert. Find the large "regional" events. Look for things like the Heartland Circuit or the Mid-Atlantic Circuit events. Go to them. Go to the Canadian Elite Circuit events (2 each year are open entry).
Where does one find out about these things? I have never even heard of any of the ones you mention, apart from DITD. Short of sifting through the websites of every single Division in the country, how does one know when and where the events are? Are they announced somewhere semi-centrally? Word of mouth?
And again, are they reliably solid events year after year, or are they huge one year and sparse the next? Enquiring minds want to know!
Quote:
Unless you're willing to fly to NAC-like things why should you want/get more NACs?
-B
Uh, forgive me, the logic here seems like a double-bind: if you fly to regional events, you don't need more NACs, and if you don't, you don't deserve them?
But I reiterate: a lot of them I never hear about, and I am loathe to spend a lot of money going to distant events UNLESS I can be fairly confident that they will be solid, not just 9 guys from the local club----because with my luck THAT's the year I'd pick to show up!
Originally posted by Inquartata Uh, forgive me, the logic here seems like a double-bind: if you fly to regional events, you don't need more NACs, and if you don't, you don't deserve them?
The logic for oiuyt's position SHOULD be a double bind. his position is that there are NOT more NACs needed. the logic should lead to that conclusion. the way it does that is to discredit the other possibilities.
-m
Not at all what I'm trying to convey. Ratings are distinctly secondary to me, way behind having more opportunities to fence---which is why I decry this continuing segregation by ratings, the limitations of which we all recognize. Ideally, I want to go to every single NAC, whether I have a shot or not, and regardless of whether it tires the poor referees a little more. I realize, though, that others have different priorities ( like not sullying the hands of the elites with having to fence duffers, er, I mean, preparing them for foreign competition by whetting them only on the best stones! 
Linear Mode
