inflated ratings

[swordsen]

Peach, plese stop reminding us of that. Gads. My students do it enough.

[Peach]

Hey, I teach 10-year-olds. One of 'em saw me wearing a baseball cap backwards yesterday and said, "Isn't there a law against that for people as old as you?"

[darius]

"Hey Darius, are you going to JOs? Oh, right..." (peals of teenage laughter)

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Peach
Hey, I teach 10-year-olds. One of 'em saw me wearing a baseball cap backwards yesterday and said, "Isn't there a law against that for people as old as you?"

Backwards? You mean, bill facing the front?

[Peach]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Backwards? You mean, bill facing the front?

I'm going to have to remember that line next time I get grief for my sartorial habits.

All I know is my prospects of renewing my A get dimmer every year, and training to earn it at the age I did resulted in overuse injuries that afflicted me for months, but for one brief moment by gum (and at the right moment) I was in great shape and fencing really well. If the veterans events get more classifications, I might re-earn it, but if people like Chris Becker and Nhi Lan Le turn 40, I might not.

But you don't want someone like me seeded too low in your pool, either. I once went to a Canadian elite earlier in the days of women's sabre and was seeded near the bottom because the Canadians didn't know me & there were no points to go by then. Someone else went to the bout committee and protested my seeding, which I didn't understand at the time because I was pretty green.

Anyway, it's all up in the air. Last mixed event I went to, the only loss I had in the pool was to the one person everybody else beat.

Part of why I like fencing.

[Inquartata]

"The early days of women's sabre"? You mean, like three years ago?

The vagaries of pooling, seeding, and the like vex me sorely, for my part. I wish they'd make up a matrix of how many indicators you need to get, against which sorts of seeds, in pools of each size, in order to get good path karma in the DEs. I always seem to get an easy opponent in the first, then the top seed in the second; or a bye, followed by the left-handed top seed in the second ( lefties also vex me sorely---I spend a lot of time sorely vexed! ). Or I beat someone in the pool, and get the same person for a DE---and get drubbed.

Did I mention the sorely-vexed thing?

[Peach]

My rule is in every tournament SOMEBODY always screws up in the pools and ends up in the wrong place in the DE table, sometimes me and sometimes somebody else, and if it's not me then I always have to fence the other one. "Sorely vexed" describes it pretty well. "Morose" works, too. The time I earned my A, I was seeded first out of the pools but my *second* DE went 15-14.

I *did* say "earlier" and not "early" days of women's sabre--something like seven years ago, I think? The deep past, in other words.

[BugabooX]

Originally posted by Peach
... The time I earned my A, I was seeded first out of the pools but my *second* DE went 15-14.

So it was a "fluke" rating, huh? You probably didn't deserve it, if some opinions on this thread are to be believed. :-)

[Peach]

Hey, I think everything I achieve in fencing is a "fluke" at my age! I still can't believe they let me compete. Think of all the sports where you're over the hill after college.

Actually, the woman I met up with so early and only beat by one point tended to mess up in the pool. At a Div I, I once saw her fight her way out of the bottom (seriously, she had to fence for something like last place) and then beat Chris Becker (Chris kept going in repechage), basically I think because Chris had no idea what to do with her. People like that are one of the reason many classifications are "flukes," because their occurrence is subject to the vagaries of chance and the variability of human beings.

My next bouts after the 15-14 were easy--even the semifinal, which I lost, was a close enough bout to make me feel good.

[edew]

Fluke is how you get Simone Vanni to win the men's foil championships at the 2002 WC. Fluke is how you get Covaliu, Gourdain, Kothny and Ferenczik in the top 4 of the 2000 Olympics instead of the expected crew of Podzniakov, Charikov, Touya, Tarantino, Caserta.

Is it fluke that got Xue Tan to the gold, over Jamaeva? Or Hoo(?) over Duplitzer for the gold in women's epee?

That's the beauty of the sport: when the unexpected occurs and the underdog triumphs over the BMOTB (Big man on the block).

[Chris]

Originally posted by whtouche
I think personally that the largest source of "inflated" ratings, at least locally for me, is when an open is mixed. The ratings chart doesnt look to the gender of the 'A's or 'B's present. As such, an uninspired mens turnout, mixed with women, can produce some guys with inflated ratings, people who wouldnt normally be able to get 'C's or the like wouldnt have as much trouble.
I hope this doesn't spark another men vs women gender equality debate

PS: Good luck on that no 'gender equity debate' thing!

There are certainly some fencers with classifications who are not as 'good' as other fencers with lower classifications, and certainly some of them are women.

That being said, part of the problem is not inflation of classifications, but DE-flation: fencers in some area may well improve significantly over time, and it is sensible that while most of the better ones might all improve, SOME, a small number of fencers MAY continue to dominate, but without somehow mixing with another group (that has some higher class'd fencers), the will find that the (old) scheme limits them.

Several things can be done to alter the stasis:

1. Have restricted events for unclassified fencers only, or D & under, or whatever...This is wholy appropriate under the current rules, and many divisions do it.

2. Travel to other divisions where they supposedly have fencers with these inflated class'ns. (or better, yet, try to get them to come around to some of your division's events.)

3. Be aware that the USFA this past year, opened up the tournament rating standard to inlcude ALMOST any USFA sanctioned event held in accordance with (i.e. using a format listed in) the current Athlete Progams Handbook; Specifially, this NOW includes any-age restricted events, as well as age-group qualifers.

This will probably lead to an 'inflation' of sorts, but I beleive, a significant portion of this apparent inflation may well actually be an equalization, with a little inflation on top.

As I have said before, at least once a year (like in August) it would be REALLY interesting to know how many A's, B's, C's, etc. that ARE in the USFA system.

If Anyone can poke, prod, plead with anyone at the USFA offices (now that they have settled into their new 'digs'), and get this out of them, please make some noise about it.

Have a nice day!

[Chris]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Eric, just answer me this simple question: Have you ever seen somebody earn a rating once, and not ever earn it again?

If somebody earns a D over and over, then earns a C, then doesn't re-earn the C, wouldn't you say that C was a flukey rating? "flukiness", as you put it, is quite quantifiable. it is inversely proportional to the number of times a rating is re-earned.

-m

Well, this essentially happened to me: in 1991, in foil, there were 6 or 7 B's in my division, including me, as well as a couple C's; Over a short period of time, as a number of people either quit, moved away, or switched weapons, the number essentially went to 2 B's and 1 'C', and so we rarely had a 'C' tournament, let alone a 'B event: once a year we had a tournament that was marketed to and attracted some higher level fencers from other divisions, but usually this was a little more competition than I was ready for.

Sicne, at the time, I really didn't have the money to travel to many other events, and when I DID, usually ran into the same problem, in four years, I only had two good opportunities to renew, which I managed to NOT do.

C'est la Vie!

I am doing more epee, now, and doing comparably well in that, but same story: several C's, in my division, but no 'B's, and only 1 'A'...Although I am traveling to more regional events now, so with several victories over 'A' and 'B' fencers on the way to winning a couple of these, I am hopeful once more.

'Keep plugging!'

[veeco]

Originally posted by edew
Fluke is how you get Simone Vanni to win the men's foil championships at the 2002 WC. Fluke is how you get Covaliu, Gourdain, Kothny and Ferenczik in the top 4 of the 2000 Olympics instead of the expected crew of Podzniakov, Charikov, Touya, Tarantino, Caserta.

Is it fluke that got Xue Tan to the gold, over Jamaeva? Or Hoo(?) over Duplitzer for the gold in women's epee?

That's the beauty of the sport: when the unexpected occurs and the underdog triumphs over the BMOTB (Big man on the block).

I would not say that all these results are flukes. At a high level, in the top 16 of the FIE rankings, anyone can, on a good day, beat all the other ones. It just depends. Vanni for example had won the European championships the year before, so his victory at worlds wasn't that extraordinary.

Covaliu, Gourdain, Kothny and Ferjanczik all had had decent results before, and they came definitely more prepared than the others. I can speak for Gourdain since I know him and he definitely had some luck going for him, winning several bouts 15-14 on his way to the final. Interestingly enough, his victory over Podzniakov that year wasn't one of the 15-14, I think it was 15-11. Some amount of that can be attributed to better preparation since he knew in advance he would have to fence him.

The chinese and korean victories, while surprising, are not unprecedented, there has been strong Asian finishes at worlds before. Since they don't compete on the world cup circuit everytime this happens everyone is surprised, but by now people should start considering the possibility that Asia is a force to be reckoned with at worlds.

[Chris]

Originally posted by a517dogg
Chris i understood none of that.

Well, I tried to be clear...
It's not really critical that you understand the Canadian System, as I do not expect the USFA to emulate it any time soon.

Suffice it to say that you may THINK of it as follows (though this is NOT exactly how it works):
You want to finish ahead of half of the fencers in a classification to get that classification.

They key benefit is that this allows the number of new clasifications to be proportional to the strength of the event:

In USFA system an event of 24 with 2 A's, 2 B's and 10 C's will ONLY be a B1 if one of the B's gets 9th; at BEST it will be A1, and 1 'B' MIGHT get an 'A'

An event with 12 A's and 12 B's would get treated the same: A1, and it's a bit less likely that any of the Bs would win.

Under the Canadian system, in the 12 & 12 scenario, anyone finishing in the top 6 (ahead of half of the A's) would get an 'A', which is DEFINITELY something the A's want to do very much, as the rentention of their 'A' classification is dependent on how many times they re-earn in every 2 years (I beleive it's 2 years.)

[i]
yes, my inflated rating is the result of a mixed open. but i still beat two male Bs and a male A to win it, but i still feel its inflated. hmm.

Sounds more like a deflated ego to me!
If you beat 2 B's and an 'A' to win, you certainly deserve something!

Have a nice day!!!
Ooops, you already HAD one!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Or Hoo(?) over Duplitzer for the gold in women's epee?

I didn't even know she had time to fence, what with playing first base and all...

( Sorry, couldn't resist. )

Originally posted by Chris
not inflation of classifications, but DE-flation

I almost always find myself DE-flated, right around the second DE to be precise!

[nahouw]

Originally posted by veeco
I would not say that all these results are flukes. At a high level, in the top 16 of the FIE rankings, anyone can, on a good day, beat all the other ones. It just depends. Vanni for example had won the European championships the year before, so his victory at worlds wasn't that extraordinary.

Covaliu, Gourdain, Kothny and Ferjanczik all had had decent results before, and they came definitely more prepared than the others. I can speak for Gourdain since I know him and he definitely had some luck going for him, winning several bouts 15-14 on his way to the final. Interestingly enough, his victory over Podzniakov that year wasn't one of the 15-14, I think it was 15-11. Some amount of that can be attributed to better preparation since he knew in advance he would have to fence him.

The chinese and korean victories, while surprising, are not unprecedented, there has been strong Asian finishes at worlds before. Since they don't compete on the world cup circuit everytime this happens everyone is surprised, but by now people should start considering the possibility that Asia is a force to be reckoned with at worlds.

I agree with Veeco -- at the very top level, it just boils down to how they feel on the day --whether they are on or off, how much pressure they feel with the stakes so high, how much expectations their federations place on them, how they personally can deal with this, who wants it more -- and, of course, the luck of the draw.

The FIE competition software does a random flip-flop at the start of each competition -- i.e. it provides that the number 1 and 2 seeds are randomly flipped, so that they may get to fence different people. This helped Jeannet, who had a much easier draw, and hurt Paolo -- Paolo had a very tough draw, winning almost all his bouts by 15-14, until he met up with Kolobkov in the final 8 in which he lost 15-14 -- a bout that should have occurred much later, except for the fact that Kolobkov hadn't competed much this year, so he was seeded 8th.

As far as to Mihai and Matthieu, both did very well in the Olympics, and it was long overdue and well deserved! I know them both, and they are both really down-to-earth people -- they have been around and have seen it all -- they were well prepared -- they just wanted it more, and didn't have the burden of their federation's expectations on them. Especially with Matthieu -- he won so many by 15-14, it was by his sheer force of will that he wanted it more.

As far as to Vanni, he is Italian, and very well trained, both technically and in regards to tempo. He was very focused, had nothing to lose and everything to gain (i.e. no pressure and no expectations), he obviously wanted it more, and it is beautiful that he won!

As far as to the Asian nations -- yes, they don't compete at World Cups often, but the rest of the world can't ignore their skill -- sometimes, people see it as a surprise when they do well, but they just don't have the funds to travel to all the World Cups and gain points. I think that the rest of the world doesn't understand how much martial arts play in Asian culture -- I'm not talking hard martial arts, but the soft martial arts, which are at times, for relaxation and meditation -- a quality of life issue, and a cultural thing (you can do an internet search to understand the difference between a hard martial art and a soft martial art). As such, within their culture, when someone comes to fencing I can see that they can come more naturally to it -- they have a greater pool to draw from. In addition, I know that in South Korea, many of their fencers come from high corporate ranks -- they view fencing as a a good recreational activity for business people as a way to diffuse corporate stress.

[a517dogg]

Sounds more like a deflated ego to me!
If you beat 2 B's and an 'A' to win, you certainly deserve something!

Have a nice day!!!
Ooops, you already HAD one!
[/b][/quote]





five reasons i think my rating is inflated:

As should make at least 32 in a Junior if they are under 20. i have not yet done this.

There are two (now four) but two strong As in my division. i beat one of them at this tournement, first time ive ever beaten him, but i basically only beat him because he was confident enough that he was going to win to kind of goof around in the first period, after which i had three touches lead. the other A in the division, the only time i fenced him in a tournement he also goofed around and after the first period i had two touches lead. he still ended up winning 13-12. if i fenced them again in competition they would both beat my *** senseless, just like they do in practice.

I earned my A in a mixed open. one of the two As that made top 8 was a female. hence, i have a girly A.

I beat the Bs 6-5 and 15-14, hardly convincing wins.

i went from a D02 to a C02 to an A03 in two months and two tournements. my C02 was not inflated. My A03 i think is. A fencers in my opinion shoud be akin to black belts in tae kwon do or something: master of that weapon, including solid tactics, strategy, footwork, bladework, offensive game, defensive game, speed, endurace, etc etc etc... which i deffinitely do not have.




yet here i am stuck with this rating i dont really want (it doesn't let me fence div II events), in addition to which, expectations will be a little bit higher: i'll be seeded higher in san diego junior NAC than any junior result i've ever pulled. there should be some way to cancel your rating or something.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by a517dogg



I earned my A in a mixed open. one of the two As that made top 8 was a female. hence, i have a girly A.

Uh oh, I trust you have your Nomex suit on...

there should be some way to cancel your rating or something.

There is, you can quit competing for a few years...or fence abroad ( not "a broad", see Nomex comment above! ) where your A will be really, really meaningless.

[a517dogg]

i fence broads enough already.

i wish the fencers i face were a little more broad themselves. maybe then it wouldn't matter the my shoulder throws my point off target.

i wish my opponents made a little less broad parries. or maybe a little broader.

maybe i should learn some foil, to broaden my horizons.

i wish i broad a little more skill to the strip.

wow that last one was especially bad... bedtime