Magnaminous Act, or Gaming the Cadet/Junior World Team?

[fdad]

For sure. I have long thought it ridiculous that we do not require our top ranked fencers to compete in our own National Championships in order to be eligible for World teams. Seniors should be no exception. I agree with you that the timing of our Nationals should not conflict with FIE events.

Why not place the JO's, (renamed as the Cadet and Junior National Championships) in October, before the Cadet designated and Junior World Cup season starts in November. Put the Div I Nationals in December before the Senior World Cups begin. That way there is no conflict for anyone, and the best are mandated to fence. Entry to the Div I Champs would be the same as now, in that anyone on the Senior Rolling list is eligible. If the Senior World Champs is moved to the summer from its current October, as I understand from the FIE Congress meeting, then having the Div I Champs in December eliminates any conflicts with the SN in July. It also allows plenty of room for Div I NACs--Sept, Oct, Nov, Jan, Feb, April--are all fine for Div I NACs, with the Champs in December. Just avoid the conflict with the Junior Worlds in April.

I agree with everything you said except - December NAC is worst attended because it conflicts with final exams for most college students - Nov. or Jan would be better.

[pillow]

Good. Div I Champs in Nov, as there are Senior World Cups in January. No need for the elections; you and I can run the USFA just fine from here.

[Allex]

For the second time on this thread - *team points don't roll off*. They only include results from the current season. That is why Ms. Merza's result from last season doesn't count. One of the biggest flaws in the current system is the USFA's insistence on selecting the team at JOs where JOs are scheduled well before the end of the JWC season and well before the FIE registration deadline for teams. There are several JWCs and SWCs that just don't count (I guess they could count for rolling) since they come after USFA's self imposed selection deadline and before the end of the season.

I thought so, just could not believe that a result from a calendar year that is quite commendable can be simply ignored because it occurred prior to the last year JWC's.
Also in Europe - at least Eastern + France, Italy, Germany - it would be unthinkable to have National Championships without top fencers. In Soviet Union the National Champion was automatically on the team - which produced a lot of "tsures" as well.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I think a lot of counties run into the Domestic/International problem. The root of the problem comes from the fact that even the strongest domestic tournaments are an order of magnitude different, and more difficult than the tournaments that the top athletes of the country want to be successful at.

Especially in the geographically larger, but still weaker countries, (Australia, Canada, US, China/Russia maybe?) it's hard to imagine the incentive for a top athlete to want to spend a lot of money to get on a plane to fly to a tournament that doesn't provide the experience they need to improve. In countries like france or italy, the domestic events are already bordering on world class, and the travel isn't even that difficult so it's not a problem for them.

One solution is top make National championships (or other domestic tournaments) mandatory, either directly (you have to come or else) or by weighting some sort of qualification so that the top athletes basically have to go to qualify (or some combination thereof). I think this sort of works, but it still doesn't really make the top athletes take the tournament seriously - and you still have the problem that it's not beneficial for success in their season. There are already big tournaments that they need to attend, and the time/financial/energy burden to go to one more that doesn't even matter/help is kind of rough.

Obviously as a federation you want them to go to as many domestic tournaments as possible. This is how you can bring up your domestic fencers without needing them to travel internationally.

I wonder, just throwing ideas out here, is it not possible to host a large international tournament, but on home soil, and consider the results form that as "Nationals". It might be very difficult to get another tournament into the FIE schedule, but if you could incentivise strong international fencers to show up, then it's at least a good practice event for the top fencers, plus it solves the problem of local fencers not getting to fence strong fencers as much.

Maybe some country has tried this already?

Any solution will cost money, but this might be cheaper:

In order to increase the quality of USFA WS fencing, require all those who want to be part of the team to participate in an appropriate large-scale domestic event, such as the SN. That will increase the "hard bouts as a training experience" payoff for the WS fencers just below national team level. That is a carrot for those ranked #5-10 (or so) nationally, but it can obviously be a stick for the top-level national fencers who want to fence really hard bouts. In order to provide a carrot for those, bring the competition to them, not the other way around. Pay (but I do not know how get funds for this) the fencers who are ranked #3-7 in then national points standings in Russia, Ukraine, and such countries to come over to the SN, and run a training camp with them and the top-level US. WS fencers. Fencers from poor countries would probably like to be paid bucks to fence, and if they are from those countries they can be assumed to be really hard opposition. A training camp in which there are 20 fencers, all of them at national team level or close to it, would probably provide a tougher fencing experience than either a SN Div I or even a low-level FIE event, in which most of the poule bouts will be stepping stones to the top-level US WS fencers, and there will only be (at most) half a dozen really tough DE bouts.

Just throwing out an idea, there may of course be some flaw that I am not aware of.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[indypacers]

I hate to ask a silly question here, but does the national championship really mean anything if selection to the team is based on the points list and the national coaches discretion?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

You mean other than going in the record books as the National Champion? Because of the points value of winning a NAC versus the points value of placing well overseas, the Nat Champs often doesn't make or break one's chances at the National Team. Usually those places are decided largely by international success...and members of the National Team do not always feel the need to compete for the individual championship.

Now, if USA Fencing were to top weight the event with a two or 3X point bonus, I suspect you'd see a slightly higher level of participation.

To the other part of your question, the team selection process is codified at the beginning of the year, which has the effect of limiting the national coaches' ability to exercise their discretion, other than picking the kinds and qualities and numbers of events their fencers may or must go to in order to qualify. This is why certain US fencers, coaches and families were not a bit happy with the last minute change of qualification path outlined under the hastily-withdrawn Korfanty maneuver.

It used to be that only the 4th place Junior alternate/team place was somewhat fluid, with the National Coach having some discretion in choosing that 4th slot; sometimes going with a top cadet up and comer who would then be held over past the Cadet competition and allowed to remain overseas in order to take part in the Junior Team competition.

But in some years, even that decision is fraught with unhappy fencers...especially when a last year Junior sitting in 4th place gets bumped from their final opportunity to fence on a National Team.

[indypacers]

Thanks Capt......

it just seems odd that with most every other Olympic Sport, qualification is based on your national standing and placement at national events against your fellow countrymen. I don't think track and field selections or selection of other team sports has anything to do with whether you participated anywhere outside of the US. So, if US Fencing is stuck with that current model it seems that we'll always have the best team that can finance travel abroad to heavy point events versus sending the "hot" fencer or even a national champion.

[SJCFU#2]

it just seems odd that with most every other Olympic Sport, qualification is based on your national standing and placement at national events against your fellow countrymen.

Perhaps this is because many (probably "most") Olympic events is open to just about anyone who their NGB chooses to send - fencing however is restricted to a small number of entries, both for individual and team events and qualification, and qualification for this limited number of spots is based on a combination of international standing and regional quotas (one slot in each event is reserved for each geographic region). This means that fencers (both individuals and teams) generally must prove themselves in international competition in order to have a chance of even qualifying for the Olympics.

[fdad]

Perhaps this is because many (probably "most") Olympic events is open to just about anyone who their NGB chooses to send - fencing however is restricted to a small number of entries, both for individual and team events and qualification, and qualification for this limited number of spots is based on a combination of international standing and regional quotas (one slot in each event is reserved for each geographic region). This means that fencers (both individuals and teams) generally must prove themselves in international competition in order to have a chance of even qualifying for the Olympics.

Are you sure about this?

[edew]

Perhaps this is because many (probably "most") Olympic events is open to just about anyone who their NGB chooses to send - fencing however is restricted to a small number of entries, both for individual and team events and qualification, and qualification for this limited number of spots is based on a combination of international standing and regional quotas (one slot in each event is reserved for each geographic region). This means that fencers (both individuals and teams) generally must prove themselves in international competition in order to have a chance of even qualifying for the Olympics.

Prior to 2000, I think, each country's NGB can decide who will attend the Olympics for fencing, much like many of the other sports. Then for 2000 (most likely for 2004), the requirement was based on international standing modulo some minor leeway and restrictions. This caused, for example in 2008, three very strong italians eligible for Beijing, but only two could go: Baldini, Cassara and Sanzo (with Baldini disqualified for apparent doping, Cassara took his spot). At the time, they were 1, 4 and 2 in the international rankings (I believe).

Each sport's international governing body – the FIE for fencing for example – decides how they want athletes to qualify to the Olympics. The marathon, for example, must have athletes who can achieve a minimum race time. If a country can't produce a runner who ran a minimum time, that country can't send a marathon participant, if if that runner is the fastest in that country. For track, there may also be a similar minimum race time to achieve in order to place an athlete in the games.

The main reason for the international governing body to dictate whether national governing bodies can send athletes is because the IOC wants to limit the number of participants in the games to 10,000 athletes. If every 168 and counting countries decided to send a full squad, you can imagine the chaos from having 30,000 or more athletes, most of which can't compete reasonably in the international level. You'd have 61 heats in the qualifying rounds of the 100m (3 runners/country, 8 lanes, 168 countries). Even though the race is 10 seconds long, it takes about 10 minutes to transition from one heat to the next, which means 10 hours just for the first round of qualifications for just the 100m. Then there's the 200m, 400m, 800m, 1600m, hurdles for the same distances, then the women's... that's 20 events right there. That's 20 days of qualifying events!