where are my points?

[esgrima]

i know it's a little late, but i'm writing to see if anyone out there can explain to me why the DIV1 senior men's saber summer nationals gave less points then what is published in our beloved ''athlete's handbook''? i placed in the top 16 (earning points) but earned a lot less than what i thought they would be. i am aware that the competition could have been tougher had more ''top fencers'' attended but the rules are the rules. the champion only got 600 points where according to our cherished ''athlete's handbook'' he should have got atleast 1000. Cheney, if you read this please help me and yourself. we went to that tournament we did what we did and we should be rewarded with what was and still is promised.

[pillow]

i know it's a little late, but i'm writing to see if anyone out there can explain to me why the DIV1 senior men's saber summer nationals gave less points then what is published in our beloved ''athlete's handbook''? i placed in the top 16 (earning points) but earned a lot less than what i thought they would be. i am aware that the competition could have been tougher had more ''top fencers'' attended but the rules are the rules. the champion only got 600 points where according to our cherished ''athlete's handbook'' he should have got atleast 1000. Cheney, if you read this please help me and yourself. we went to that tournament we did what we did and we should be rewarded with what was and still is promised.

You may have placed in top 16, but you probably had multiple point deductions for style and the level of difficulty of your moves, similar to the recent Olympic figure skating and snowboarding events. This is not in the Handbook, but those in the know are aware.

[Mihail]

Also, the tenacity of your hand was probably lacking.

[Purple Fencer]

Hey, at least he has points to complaint about.

Div III MF at 01 Summer Nats....my all time best results at any large event (29th)....Whaddya MEAN no points?? Oh come ON....THE 10 YEARS OLDS get points!!!!

[Inquartata]

Your screams and gesticulations were not considered up to standards. Sorry, man.

[piste off]

We felt you fouled the South Korean skater. Crazy sport, huh?

R-

ps: let it go PF, seriously man

[Inquartata]

Hey, I'm still bitter over the Norman Conquest...

[Purple Fencer]

ps: let it go PF, seriously man

If you think I'm really upset at no points, you don't know me very well...I did FAR FAR better than I'd hoped for...missed my first flight home, in fact.

[dcrocket]

Hey, I'm still bitter over the Norman Conquest...

How did this drift to Australian golf?

[telkanuru]

Hey, I'm still bitter over the Norman Conquest...

So, on the Bayeux Tapestry where it says "Hic domus: incenditur!", that was yours, then?

[pillow]

Don't you think that "Dude, Where Are My Points?" has a nicer ring to it than the Op?

[erooMynohtnA]

i know it's a little late, but i'm writing to see if anyone out there can explain to me why the DIV1 senior men's saber summer nationals gave less points then what is published in our beloved ''athlete's handbook''? i placed in the top 16 (earning points) but earned a lot less than what i thought they would be. i am aware that the competition could have been tougher had more ''top fencers'' attended but the rules are the rules. the champion only got 600 points where according to our cherished ''athlete's handbook'' he should have got atleast 1000. Cheney, if you read this please help me and yourself. we went to that tournament we did what we did and we should be rewarded with what was and still is promised.

The 2009 MS Div 1 national championship was a .6 strength factor, due to the conflict with the Pan American Zonal Championships.

[fdad]

The 2009 MS Div 1 national championship was a .6 strength factor, due to the conflict with the Pan American Zonal Championships.

That was the starting value, if he'd thrown in a few triple axel combinations he could have gotten up to 1.2.

[RebelFencer]

i know it's a little late, but i'm writing to see if anyone out there can explain to me why the DIV1 senior men's saber summer nationals gave less points then what is published in our beloved ''athlete's handbook''? i placed in the top 16 (earning points) but earned a lot less than what i thought they would be. i am aware that the competition could have been tougher had more ''top fencers'' attended but the rules are the rules. the champion only got 600 points where according to our cherished ''athlete's handbook'' he should have got atleast 1000. Cheney, if you read this please help me and yourself. we went to that tournament we did what we did and we should be rewarded with what was and still is promised.

You have a valid gripe, but the way you put it really makes you sound like a douche.

[esgrima]

you want douche, here's some:
I can see that of all the ''fencers'' who responded to this only one actually tried to help where as the rest simply made rather childish jokes about something they have never had nor will ever have; a chance at getting some points. thanks for your time. i can see if i want answers about important matters concerning our sport i've come to the wrong place. maybe i should ask you guys about the way to play warhammer or what are the names of the characters from dragon ball z or something else related to the same person profile. i'm sure i'd get all the help in the world.

[epeelion]

Likely age of poster esgrima is now approximately 15. If not for the fact that he got points in a Div1 event, based soley on that last post, I would say 12-13.

You sound like a childish imbecile.

There were less strong people at your event. Thus, the strength factor went down. Thus, you got less points. Kinda sucks, maybe, but this is how it works in points events, including world cups. Winning an event where there are less of the top ranked fencers means you didn't have to work as hard to get where you got, which means you get less reward. That's fair.

[esgrima]

instead of calling me a childish imbecile, maybe you could tell me if this decision was published or simply decided upon after or before the competition? i agree with what you say about world cups and i'm quite aware of how they work concerning strength factor but the rules for nacs are different or not? rule are rules

[epeelion]

Don't hurl childish insults concerning lifestyles, interests, and fencing success then. Your first post came off as whiney, people called you out on it, and you got annoyed and reacted by saying "You want douchy?", and acting like a douche. Don't do that.

I believe I remember women's epee having the same problem, and that being decided upon before the competition. I certainly remember that everyone I knew was aware of it, and I got emails to that effect. I also remember seeing that it applied to multiple weapons and that some people were upset, so I'm pretty sure it was posted somewhere.

This is not usually an issue as there's not often a direct conflict like the one last year, but it makes perfect sense that if the majority of the top 4 or 5 fencers are missing, the strength factor of the event goes down. Regardless of whether you were properly informed or not (in your opinion), there's not much to do about it now. I'm not sure what the point of your original post was, since you start off by saying "I was wondering if someone could explain..." (which is perfectly reasonable), and end with:

Cheney, if you read this please help me and yourself. we went to that tournament we did what we did and we should be rewarded with what was and still is promised.

Which sounds like you pretty much just want to complain. I certainly don't remember Bryan being upset by it, but if you're really curious, I could ask him if he knew beforehand.

[bbower]

This is a pretty serious question. It sounds like one of 2 scenarios

1) The ranking factor was changed before the close of registration for the tournament ... in which case the question is how is this information disseminated ... where do athletes look for it.

2) The ranking factor was changed after the close of registration for the tournament ... this would be grossly unacceptable in my opinion.

I'm curious which it is.

+1 for all the people responding to the OP with useless crap being asshats

[RITFencing]

The decision was published before the event. SNs last year conflicted with a more important event (Pan Ams, I think, but someone can correct me if I am wrong.) The national coaches get to decide on the methods of team selection, and Yury said that he wanted MS to have a .6 SF based on the fact that the strongest and therefore most likely to qualify to worlds that year would not be attending, and that they should not have to choose between Pan Am games and Worlds (that last bit was not explicitly stated, but is conjecture on my part) and, concurrently, he did not want someone less strong to "steal" a spot on last year's team.

And yes, the OP was acting snotty, and getting worse when people responded in kind. However, let us all remember that arguing on the net is like running in a certain race, and let it all go. The question has been answered, it's time for this thread to die.