Six Ten year-olds and One Gets an "E"

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by JEC
I challenge you to show me more than 6 North CA kids that currently are Y12 fencers with C's, or more than one Y10 who has a C rating. Obviously, because their lower reach, they would do better in ROW weapons.

Oregon division has a Y12 A...earned in 2002, re-earned in 2003. It happens. Another kid from Oregon won the Div 1 national championship as a Y14.

From what I've seen, kids under 14 with ratings of "E" and "D" are generally competent enough to give opens a try. If they've earned a "C" (chris' vast "North Dakota" fencing conspiracy theory aside ) then chances are they're gonna be in your face, regardless of age. And as pointed out by Mo, a 12 year old faces huge obstacles in getting to NAC level opens...but if they make it, they've earned it.

I fail to see the ultimate harm in having "D" and "E" kids in local opens. If they can hack it, it will make more interesting fencing for everyone. If not, they'll tend to drop out until they are more competitive. In the meantime, it's just more people to fence, which makes for a better competition.

[vigia]

<B>Because</B> the ratings are about seeding the pools in a roughly balanced manner, and <B>because</B> the quality of the ratings given to Youth fencers at local tournaments is likely to be poor in relation to those given to adults, the pools for the non age-restricted events will get skewed. This worsens, not betters, the seeding process for those events. I fail to see how it could be otherwise. And therefore, how can this be a good idea?

(I am talking local events here. Sorry for the missing scope in my original post.)

Do we need some way to differentiate kids in their own tournaments? Sure, why not. That sounds easy enough to do at the Divisional level, at divisional discretion.

So back to my original question -- was this ever discussed at an open forum? Who made this decision?

[darius]

Look, it's never going to be perfect. Seeding is a rough estimate -- ultimately, you fence who you're given, if you win, you stand a better chance of advancing.

I don't think youth Ds and Es are any big deal; we've generated them on a local level. In the open events around here, the 9-12 year olds with Ds and Es tend to do a bit worse than the adults with Ds and Es. But then, to add a bit of flamebait to this conversation -- I've noticed that the women tend to finish a bit behind the similarly-rated men.

That's just life -- if Fencer X is taller and stronger, they're going to have an edge, all other factors being equal. And that's why at the National level, events are gender-segregated and age-segregated, with provisions for younger fencers who are good enough to fence beyond those age boundaries.

Open events are for practice anyway. Nobody makes the Olympics. They're a whole bunch of fun, and sometimes you can win cool stuff or get prestige or an upgraded rating, depending on the event, but ultimately, it's just for fencing. Why is this such an issue?

AFAIK, these things generally get discussed at the annual meetings, which are held during Summer Nationals.

darius

[vigia]

Originally posted by darius
But then, to add a bit of flamebait to this conversation -- I've noticed that the women tend to finish a bit behind the similarly-rated men.

I backed off that one earlier, but I tend to agree with you .

Originally posted by darius
Open events are for practice anyway. Nobody makes the Olympics. They're a whole bunch of fun, and sometimes you can win cool stuff or get prestige or an upgraded rating, depending on the event, but ultimately, it's just for fencing. Why is this such an issue?

OK, fine. You are probably right. I just had a real gut reaction when I saw Y10 fencers getting E's and D's that previously required at least some level of real effort to achieve. Not that having an E or D is any great shakes, but there you have it.

[Purple Fencer]

This is why, when we set up the little Y10/12 and Y14 events in the SoCal Division, the decision was made by the salles who ran the events to NOT have them USFA sanctioned so a rating could not be awarded. The whole idea is to give inexperieced kisd a chance to compete in a friendly atmosphere against others NOT from their own salle, and without the pressure of competing "for real". My thought, and it was echoed by the reps from Beverly Hills FC, Fortune FC and Swords FC, was that we didn;t want to chance 15 Y10 foilists with barely any experience on the strip in an event where we'd have to award a rating. I mean...if you have 15 kids flailing foils about like it's bad sabre, are the winners REALLY a D & three Es??

Sure, we get our share of kidss who DO have some competitive experience and may, in fact, have an E or D...but those are earned at opens against adults who may be more skilled, so it's mroe of a legitimate rating.

Yes, the only real purpose the rating serve is to seed events, but many people use earning a rating as an indicator of skills progress...a goal to shoot for. Wht trash someone's ego by giving them a rating that doesn't properly reflect their actual skills?

[vigia]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer
This is why, when we set up the little Y10/12 and Y14 events in the SoCal Division, the decision was made by the salles who ran the events to NOT have them USFA sanctioned so a rating could not be awarded.

That has to be about the easiest and best way to skin the cat that I can think of. Divisional discretion is the best part. Doesn't require anything fancy. Any downside to this? I would presume that any national qualifiying events (JO's, Nationals) would have to be USFA sanctioned, but then any ratings given out would probably be minimal and have some reasonable level of meaning.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer
I mean...if you have 15 kids flailing foils about like it's bad sabre, are the winners REALLY a D & three Es??

Like it's bad sabre??!?

ack...argfh...ichk (being reduced to making inarticulate sounds)

Surely you meant "badly flailing foils like they were EXPERT sabreurs?"

[edew]

People who complain about a youth's D versus an adult's D don't necessarily have a leg to stand on. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we had a 12 year old compete in the open women's event. That was two seasons ago. She won one and took third in the other. That sounds like it was commensurate with her classification then.

Currently, in our Category-2 men's foil (For C and under, essentially), we have two 12-and-unders in the top-8 standings (5th and 6th). The only reason they are not currently higher is that they both missed one event, where they could have earned more points. Another 12-year old took second in the only event he entered.

Thus, the few who have entered adult levels, and have D's or C's are rightfully fencing their level, as espressed by their classifications.

I mean, do you have direct evidence otherwise? Do you see youths with D's and E's who have competed in open events and have constantly been pummeled by the larger fencers?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
People who complain about a youth's D versus an adult's D don't necessarily have a leg to stand on. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we had a 12 year old compete in the open women's event. That was two seasons ago. She won one and took third in the other. That sounds like it was commensurate with her classification then.

it is absolutely irrelevant that you have met one youth fencer who deserved the rating. She would have earned it in an unrestricted event, in that case. the issue is that the standards for her getting a D were somewhat lower than for an adult of similar skill level. As you point out, she would have earned it anyway. the difference is that the rest of the youth ratings wouldn't have. In my opinion, the best method would be to have a different ratings chart for age restricted events: one which doesn't include E1 or D1. thus, age restricted events could give ratings if they had enough ratings participating, but could not create ratings. As long as the seed ratings are earned at age unrestricted events, I have no issue with age restricted events giving ratings, just a problem with them creating ratings from nothing.

I mean, do you have direct evidence otherwise? Do you see youths with D's and E's who have competed in open events and have constantly been pummeled by the larger fencers?

actually, yes.

All that being said, I don't really think this is a major issue at all. I mean, how much does this misrating really affect anything? rarely are you going to get enough weak ratings together to start pumping out weak ratings above D.

-m

[vigia]

Originally posted by edew
People who complain about a youth's D versus an adult's D don't necessarily have a leg to stand on. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we had a 12 year old compete in the open women's event. That was two seasons ago. She won one and took third in the other. That sounds like it was commensurate with her classification then.

We have Youth fencers here with ratings earned in unrestricted events, and those ratings over many competitions this season have proven to be an appropriate measure of skill -- and therefore a good way to balance the seeding.

But <b>now</b> we are starting to get a smattering of Youth fencers who earned their ratings at age-restricted events. There is no comparison between the Youth fencers who had ratings "created" (as epeemike put it) by age-restricted tournaments and those who had earned them in opens.

So yes, I have some hard data here -- recent DE's between one of the Youth fencers who had earned his rating at the Big Apple Open and the fencers who had earned their E's at Y12/Y14 events were 15-1, 15-0, 15-3, and those touches against him were largly sloth on his part.

Does it really matter? Probably not. I've come to terms with that. I do like the idea of the Division running most age-restricted events without sanctioning, and then the issue goes away. At the NAC's and the Nationals, what the heck. The 10-year old who beats everyone else can have a D, and that probably isn't terribly wrong. If the idea of Youth Ratings doesn't work, it is only at the local level.

[Chris]

Originally posted by edew
People who complain about a youth's D versus an adult's D don't necessarily have a leg to stand on. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we had a 12 year old compete in the open women's event. (big snip)

Indeed, at the Minnesota Open, last weekend, the Women's Epee was won by a fairly short, 12 year-old girl, who was thusly reclassified D03 vs. D02 (which she attained through a YNAC event) by defeating a B from Wisconsin in the final; as well as finishing ahead of another D, and 5 E's, so yes, those little rascals can really get you!

Originally posted by vigia
<B>Because</B> the ratings are about seeding the pools in a roughly balanced manner, and <B>because</B> the quality of the ratings given to Youth fencers at local tournaments is likely to be poor in relation to those given to adults, the pools for the non age-restricted events will get skewed. This worsens, not betters, the seeding process for those events. I fail to see how it could be otherwise. And therefore, how can this be a good idea?

(I am talking local events here. Sorry for the missing scope in my original post.)

Yes, you are correct: People care about their classification because it affects how they are treated ('seeded') at the start of a tournament, as you say. HOWEVER, the system has ALWAYS had the weakness of inconsistency: someone from a weak area, may well be classifified a 'C' because there are a couple dozen people having tournaments, and someone has to win! It doesn't necessarily guarantee they are all that good. In another area,
where there may be quite 5-6 A's and 5-6 B's, enough that they can easily sustain their classifications through regularly practicing, and competing against each other in local competitions, it might practically impossible for a 'D' fencer to break into the top 6, or even 8, yet they might easily be more capable than the 'C' who is the 'big frog, in a small pond'!

We have been living with this problem for quite some time; it only appears that we will be living with it a little more...Who knows, it might be better this way, with a lot higher percentage of competitors classified, the 'errors' should have less impact.

Do we need some way to differentiate kids in their own tournaments? Sure, why not. That sounds easy enough to do at the Divisional level, at divisional discretion.

(Have you been involved in running tournaments before: It's often hard enough to get (ALL of the) grown-ups to keep track of their membership status and classification, once you've explained it to them, let alone (ALL of)the kids, and their parents, to complicate things as you indicate, which, by the way, would cause problems when people go to other divisions, which they occaisionally do.

THis was tried, back in the 70's, (when there were only A's, B's, and C's, without the date-code -oops! - and something called 'X-A's which were what happened to A's after 7 years; but they never turned into B's like they do now.), and it was a BIG pain to keep double books like that on the kids.

So back to my original question -- was this ever discussed at an open forum? Who made this decision?

The USFA's not real big on open fora, there's a committee, somewhere, that pretends to think about these things...I am sure that sometimes they actually do, but who is to say how well...

Fence On!

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Like it's bad sabre??!?

ack...argfh...ichk (being reduced to making inarticulate sounds)

Surely you meant "badly flailing foils like they were EXPERT sabreurs?"

No...I mean BAD sabre...the kind where they try to parry the director, not their opponent...where every head attack is a "Hassan CHOP" type...and where a flank cut turns into an attempt to behead someone! You know the type!

I'm talking lack of control due to inexperience here...not lack of control just because you suck.

Eric's statements aside, I STILL hold that a 12 year old who's hitting the strip for the 1st time (competing within a few months of taking up the sport) against 14 other kids of like age and experience and earn a D is NOT the same as a 12 year old who goes to a relatively strong local or national event and earns a D there against people of greater experience and skill.

We just didn't want to create a false rating when, perhaps, the skills weren't REALLY at an E or D level.

[edew]

You can avoid having false "ratings" if you don't put anymore value to them other than a fairly useful way to seed tournaments.

A 12 year old who goes to his or her first competition will not take first among a group of 14 others, unless all fifteen of them are there for the first time. In that case, yes, someone will come out first and that someone will also have fenced his or her first time as well.

We do have youth fencers who earn their ratings at youth-level competition, and then do well at open competition. One other example is Teagan Kilpatrick a very small 10-year old gal who earned her E or D at a RYC. Then she tried the open events and took third in one. (Ok, there were 7 fencers total, but that's beside the point: 4 others were below her.)

On the other hand, has anyone complained about crusty old veterans who fence at veteran age events and earning a rating that others don't approve of?

[vigia]

Originally posted by edew
On the other hand, has anyone complained about crusty old veterans who fence at veteran age events and earning a rating that others don't approve of?

I resemble that remark!

[Peach]

Originally posted by edew
On the other hand, has anyone complained about crusty old veterans who fence at veteran age events and earning a rating that others don't approve of?

Won't catch me complaining. If I could actually re-earn the disapproved rating in veteran age events, which I can't because we have two whole A's in WS and one of us either doesn't make the 8 or doesn't come.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by edew
You can avoid having false "ratings" if you don't put anymore value to them other than a fairly useful way to seed tournaments.

But Eric...that's my whole point! it's not the kids who put an emotional value of a weapons rating...it's the parents and - in some cases - coaches.

If I go out with the intent to earn a foil rating and I stink up the place (you've beaten me like a drum; you KNOW how bad I can be!), I, as a (hopefully) mature adult can take it...them's the breaks. Little kids don't think that way. If, using your above example ov "A 12 year old who goes to his or her first competition will not take first among a group of 14 others, unless all fifteen of them are there for the first time." someone's going to earn a D. That same kid goes to an open and gets trounced by everyone who has experience -- young and old alike, even age-peers -- and that same kid just may throw a fit.

Time to call the Wahhhmbulance!

We just didn't want the kids getting a false sense of their abilities. If they go go a divisional open or age event and get a rating, good.

[vigia]

And I think epeemike had a good take -- if the kids have ratings that they earned in unrestricted tournaments, and if there are a sufficient number of them to have a rated tournament, then fine. Just drop the E1 and D1 tournaments from the Y14/Y12/Y10 local scene and everything is probably just about right. This was the condition that caused my original post -- 6 10 year-olds and one of them gets an E! It is just nonsense, especially from the point of view of trying to get balanced seeding.

[Mo]

Originally posted by vigia
And I think epeemike had a good take -- if the kids have ratings that they earned in unrestricted tournaments, and if there are a sufficient number of them to have a rated tournament, then fine. Just drop the E1 and D1 tournaments from the Y14/Y12/Y10 local scene and everything is probably just about right. This was the condition that caused my original post -- 6 10 year-olds and one of them gets an E! It is just nonsense, especially from the point of view of trying to get balanced seeding.

Viagia, quite frankly, you need to find something else to whine about. Any open that counts for points or whatever has age group and rating restrictions.
As an adult fencer if you cannot earn an E you should consider a new sport. Most local opens are LUCKY if they can find enough people to have more than one pool. If the kid or veteran with an E sucks that much they will get beaten by everyone anyway.
The people that can beat them will finish ahead of them. I cannot see how a ten year old with an E ranking is going to ruin your life.
Kids are kids. They need to be nurtured and welcomed into the world of fencing. Is it really so bad to cut them a few breaks?
Would you protest if you won an A or a B in a veteran event??
I think NOT!!

[Peach]

It's not so much cutting them a break as giving them what they deserve. My daughter (before classifications were awarded for age group events) was a medalist in youth, cadet and junior events and nationally ranked for years, but I didn't encourage her to enter opens when she was young so that her classification was much lower than that of peers she could beat, who did enter opens.

An adult who enters an event with six people and wins gets an E. That doesn't make him or her any better, frankly, than a 10-year-old who does the same, depending on who the other 5 people were in the event. It just means that day the fencer did better than the other fencers.

And those veteran events are darn hard to earn classifications in, BTW. I know quite a number of cocky 40-year-olds who think they're going to win the first time they enter and get their heads handed to them even though they may have medaled in the opens.