still something wrong with the way we advance in rating

[gillaspy]

Over I year ago I started a discussion on why the way to advance in rating should be changed. I offer as another example:

In the Pacific Northwest Sectionals Epee (which I didn't attend), a 'C' by the name of Galen Jackson (whom I don't know) placed fifth and got no change in rating in spite of defeating a 'B', a 'C', and an 'A' in the pools, and a 'B' and an 'A' in the DE's, thereby placing ahead of nine 'A's and eight 'B's in the final results.

I've heard all the arguments, but this just doesn't smell right.

[keith]

I've heard all the arguments, but this just doesn't smell right.

Insert epee joke in...

[bbower]

Over I year ago I started a discussion on why the way to advance in rating should be changed. I offer as another example:

In the Pacific Northwest Sectionals Epee (which I didn't attend), a 'C' by the name of Galen Jackson (whom I don't know) placed fifth and got no change in rating in spite of defeating a 'B', a 'C', and an 'A' in the pools, and a 'B' and an 'A' in the DE's, thereby placing ahead of nine 'A's and eight 'B's in the final results.

I've heard all the arguments, but this just doesn't smell right.

Who cares?

There is a very good system for ranking the top 50 or so fencers. National points. Below that, a very simple, easily administered and maintained system for rankings is just fine. That's exactly what fencing has ... that's all it needs.

[gillaspy]

Who cares?

There is a very good system for ranking the top 50 or so fencers. National points. Below that, a very simple, easily administered and maintained system for rankings is just fine. That's exactly what fencing has ... that's all it needs.

If you are one of the top 50 fencers, thank you for imposing your will on the rest of us 99.99%. If you aren't, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong.

[prototoast]

If you are one of the top 50 fencers, thank you for imposing your will on the rest of us 99.99%. If you aren't, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong.

He's not (currently). The point is, the classifications are primarily for seeding and entry restriction, and provide a crude method that performs adequately. Beyond that, who particularly cares? I know, I know, lots of people, but the reality is that a letter next to your name is not, and should not be a strict indicator of skill. If one is fencing at a higher level, where these distinctions become more important, there are national points for that.

If you (personally) wish to create a regional circuit that tracks regional points as a better way of distinguishing performance at a regional level, I assume most people would be supportive of that, but it's not necessary to freak out over this like some great injustice has occurred.

[hello?]

The current system is indeed 'fine.' For every tournament where I get the underrated "X" in my pool and feel 'cheated,' there will be another tournament where I get the overrated "X." It balances out.

And, yes, points is what matters. I still remember one Nationals when I made the mistake of trying to make an obviously-disappointed fencer feel better after what I thought was a good result. The fencer looked at me like if I was from another planet and said: "Just because I re-earned my A does not make this a 'good' Nationals for me. This was terrible."

[NGV]

The main issue here seems to be the broad range of the "A2" category, which can include everything from a 25 person tournament with only a very few A or B rated fencers to a 63 person tournament with lots of A's and B's.

After an A2 gets beyond a certain size and strength, it may become extremely difficult for anyone to earn a rating, regardless of their performance. Here's an example of such a tournament. Note that Jon Normile finished in a "C" position after losing a total of two bouts in the tournament (both losses were to Bas Verwijlen).

While I understand the need to make the rating process as administratively simple as possible, I think it might make sense to add another category somewhere between A2 and A4, simply because 64 entrants is a very difficult bar to clear.

[bbower]

If you are one of the top 50 fencers, thank you for imposing your will on the rest of us 99.99%. If you aren't, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong.

According to your math, there are 300,000 active fencers in the US who aren't on the point standings ...

[Superscribe]

you mean 499,950 registered usfa men's epeeist?

That sounds about right. Huge fencing population in Montana you don't know about.

Huge.

[oso97]

According to your math, there are 300,000 active fencers in the US who aren't on the point standings ...

Actually, you're wrong as well, it would require 600,000 active fencers for the top 0.05% to equal 50 (times six weapons).

However, the fact that the percentage is closer to 3% doesn't make the argument any less compelling.

[Bonehead]

Isn't the point of the Classifications for it to be hard to advance?

I mean, you keep them for 2 years right? So that means you only need to do well in one tournament over the course of 2 years to earn a classification.

If you go to say, an average of 2 tournaments a month that you can earn the Classification you want that gives you 48 attempts to make your classification. If you don't have a good enough day on one of those 48 attempts to earn your rating, then wouldn't you say that you don't really deserve it?

[keith]

However, the fact that the percentage is closer to 3% doesn't make the argument any less compelling.

Yes it does.

[tchwojko]

Isn't the point of the Classifications for it to be hard to advance?

I mean, you keep them for 2 years right? So that means you only need to do well in one tournament over the course of 2 years to earn a classification.

If you go to say, an average of 2 tournaments a month that you can earn the Classification you want that gives you 48 attempts to make your classification. If you don't have a good enough day on one of those 48 attempts to earn your rating, then wouldn't you say that you don't really deserve it?

4 years, I thought? I don't have any significant problem with the classification system. But playing devil's advocate for a moment...

I don't go to 2 tournaments a month. I've gone to about 6 a year. Since I don't go to many I tend to go to the bigger tougher tournaments (Battle In Seattle, Remenyik, Duel in the Desert) to fence the best people I can. Those tournaments give me essentially no chance to upgrade my classification from C to B.

I've had some pretty strong finishes (for me) in those tournaments that put me in with all the B's, but nothing really to show for it as far as classification.

This doesn't really bother me, my fencing is what it is, but I can see that kind of thing bothering others.

I think the divisions could step up (and some do) and offer a points list that would both encourage people to fence in more tournaments, and give the other 97% something tangible to shoot for that doesn't need a change in the national process.

[Bonehead]

It's 4 years?

So 6 tournaments a year (which i would put on the low side) means you have 24 chances to earn your rating. All you need is one tournament where you both fence well and get a little bit lucky (either by seeding, or the impossible opponent gets black carded or something).

That's really reasonable.

Additionally, if you don't think it is, you can easily up your chances by going to more tournaments, and selecting tournaments that you can likely earn your classification at (if that's what you want).

To give one example of a hard tournament where someone should have earned something, and say it's too hard is just weird given how many weak classified fencers there are.

[telkanuru]

Once again proving the point that people care much too much about ratings

(stupid being a B for 4 years)

[Zhais]

Just all the more encouraging to go to as many tournaments as possible if you really care about trying to improve your rating. Not only will it improve you as a fencer, but you increase the chances of getting just the right matchup.

And hell, I'm doing three tournaments this month alone, all out of state. Two next month...

[gillaspy]

According to your math, there are 300,000 active fencers in the US who aren't on the point standings ...

Regardless of the actual percentage, there are many more fencers who not in that elite group than who are.

[gillaspy]

The point is, the classifications are primarily for seeding and entry restriction, and provide a crude method that performs adequately. Beyond that, who particularly cares? I know, I know, lots of people, but the reality is that a letter next to your name is not, and should not be a strict indicator of skill. If one is fencing at a higher level, where these distinctions become more important, there are national points for that.

You don't honestly believe that most fencers don't care what their rating is, do you? Every fencer I know cares.

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't care.

[telkanuru]

You don't honestly believe that most fencers don't care what their rating is, do you? Every fencer I know cares.

Most people eat at McDonald's, doesn't mean they should, or that I feel particularly bad about them being fat.