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

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
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.

But, Mo, he wasn't suggesting that national age restricted events shouldn't give ratings, just that local ones shouldn't. his basic point is that I shouldn't be able to take 15 10 year olds who may have no more than a months experience and create a D. Seems reasonable to me, as does the solution of allowing ratings to be EARNED at age restricted events, but not CREATED.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
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.)

um, eric, what this example shows is that she WASN'T good enough to earn that rating in open competition. she entered an open, and FAILED to earn a rating! the fact that four below her didn't earn one either is rather meaningless, not to mention the person who placed ABOVE her and didn't get a rating! the example you just gave is somebody who earned a rating in age restricted and failed to earn a rating in an open. It seems to fit vigia's argument rather well.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
My daugther Hannah earn her E in y10we at summer nationals and let me tell you all she earned it by alot of hard work. Plus this allows for veteran age restication event for them to get rateing.
By the way Hannah will be fencing in her first y12 event in Aprial

Tim

Again, this is not the issue at hand. Vigia is not objecting to the nationally earned ratings, just the youth ratings manufactured on the local level.

-m

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by epeemike81
But, Mo, he wasn't suggesting that national age restricted events shouldn't give ratings, just that local ones shouldn't. his basic point is that I shouldn't be able to take 15 10 year olds who may have no more than a months experience and create a D. Seems reasonable to me, as does the solution of allowing ratings to be EARNED at age restricted events, but not CREATED.

-m

Once again, someone explains my views FAR better than I! Thanks, Mike!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Peach

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.

And I resemble that remark! Drat that Bill Goering anyway!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Again,not

Hey, epeemike, where have you been?

It just ain't been the same wit'out ya, matey!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Hey, epeemike, where have you been?

It just ain't been the same wit'out ya, matey!

well, I've been busy, but more than that there hasn't really been much to say. not many interesting topics, these days, unfortunately.....

-m

[Mo]

1. Ratings are hard to get, even if you get a rating from beating 5 other ten year olds, you still had to beat five other ten year olds.

2. Men, Women, Youth, Veterans can all get ratings in their categories. It is never easy to get one. The higher up the letter IE: C, B or A the harder it is to get.

3. Instead of looking at what other's have and being bummed about it, look at your opportunities and have fun do what you can.


4. An E or D rating does not get you much so why worry about it?

5. Earning ratings is vital to being able to fence in the upper level events. Really competitive fencers take them seriously and work their butts off to maintain and re earn them often.

6. Youth fencers do NOT get a break fencing in Senior Tournaments in USFA NAC Cups, so why worry?

[Mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
But, Mo, he wasn't suggesting that national age restricted events shouldn't give ratings, just that local ones shouldn't. his basic point is that I shouldn't be able to take 15 10 year olds who may have no more than a months experience and create a D. Seems reasonable to me, as does the solution of allowing ratings to be EARNED at age restricted events, but not CREATED.

-m

What is the difference between a rating being earned or created??
Why shouldn't 10 ten year olds in a meet get a D?? BTW in any club good luck that many under 10 kids in a local event.
BTW do not respond to what I say in posts like I am a simpleton. I assure you I understand the questions.
I think you are being rude. I will wait for you to nit pick correct me on how wrong I am....
I don't find people try to get away with things like "creating a D." Most coaches just want the best for their students and like to give them all sorts of opportunities.

[Mo]

Originally posted by 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.

Peach,
I completely agree with you. You explain things simply, logically
and straight to the point. Especially the point about 6 adults and getting an E.

One question, why didn't you want you daughter getting rankings?

Both my kids have found their seeding is so much better in meets (before you guys get frothing both kids earned their B's in Division 2.) with the rating?
Isn't it lovely when the kids do so well? When my hub fenced his first Veteran event, he just wanted to win a bout in the pools. He won two!! We were so proud.

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
um, eric, what this example shows is that she WASN'T good enough to earn that rating in open competition. she entered an open, and FAILED to earn a rating! the fact that four below her didn't earn one either is rather meaningless, not to mention the person who placed ABOVE her and didn't get a rating! the example you just gave is somebody who earned a rating in age restricted and failed to earn a rating in an open. It seems to fit vigia's argument rather well.

-m

The point I was trying to make is that she fenced very well, and commensurate with your given classification, that she earned in a youth-restricted event. Thus, she did well enough to warrant her classification that she started the tournament with.

[Peach]

Originally posted by Mo
One question, why didn't you want your daughter getting rankings?

It wasn't about the letters. I didn't much care whether she got a classification, and neither did she, really. It was more important that she continued to find fencing fun and felt competitive. A judgment call based on who she was. Every kid is different. Despite my own rather considerable ambition and competitiveness, I promised myself to sit back and pay attention to what she wanted out of it. Frankly, though, if I had pushed harder I suspect my very independent and opinionated daughter would have tossed me out on my ear anyway. She has a classification now, believe me, and is doing well in college as a fencer and rugby player and English major.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Peach
(Snip)
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.

Again, I would like to point out that the USFA rules DO allow that 'veteran's' events be held at the division level - there's nothing to stop it them, if someone thinks they can attract an adequate draw of people to said event; it just takes doing.

Of course, it could still be a pretty tough little event!

(The USFA Op's Manual DOES state fairly plainly that events that are restricted both on age AND classification, together, are not sanctioned.)

Fence On!

[Repechage]

Originally posted by Chris
Again, I would like to point out that the USFA rules DO allow that 'veteran's' events be held at the division level - there's nothing to stop it them, if someone thinks they can attract an adequate draw of people to said event; it just takes doing.

Of course, it could still be a pretty tough little event!

The problem with those darn little division level veteran events is that the same people show up who fence at the national level.

[Chris]

Originally posted by epeemike81
um, eric, what this example shows is that she WASN'T good enough to earn that rating in open competition. she entered an open, and FAILED to earn a rating! the fact that four below her didn't earn one either is rather meaningless, not to mention the person who placed ABOVE her and didn't get a rating! the example you just gave is somebody who earned a rating in age restricted and failed to earn a rating in an open. It seems to fit vigia's argument rather well.

-m

What this SHOWS (besides the shallowness of Mike's analysis) is nothing! THere are VERY VERY few people that, once they attain a certain classification, ALWAYS post performances that yield the same, or better result (perhaps E-Mike is fortunate enough to be one of them!), if this was even the norm, the USFA wouldn't have instituted the demotion rule.

A month ago, I, as a C2002 Fencer (having 're-upped' in November by defeating a 'C' and a 'B'), placed 3rd, by defeating an 'A' and and 'B', in a 'B2' event, which WOULD have been an A2 event, had I not eliminated the 'A'. Last weekend, I lost to a 'D' (clubmate - who beat the OTHER C02 in our pool) in my pool, and finished 12th! It's not like I don't 'deserve' to be a 'C' - I was 4-1 in my pool, and seeded 12th - drew a local 'B' in the 16, and didn't have what it takes for me to beat him that day (or, perhaps he DID have what it takes for him to beat me, but I think it's the former.)

(BTW - my clubmate finished 2nd, and is now also a C03)

Does one's failure to repeat a performance mean they don't deserve the rating on their card, absolutely not. People are inconsistent, and are not going to do the same all the time, this goes even more for kids, and vet's.

As both Eric, and I are wont to say, if we knew who was going to win, we wouldn't have to bother to fence, would we!?!


Fence ON!

[Chris]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer
Once again, someone explains my views FAR better than I! Thanks, Mike!

He explains them, yes, but he fails to defend them! His (and your) example of 6 10-year-olds fencing for one month, and one of them earning a classification as a 'problem' with the system is invalid, as A. they could JUST as easily be grown ups who have only fenced for 1 month, AND, for that matter, there's nothing to say they even have to fence for a month! They could literally walk-in to a club off of the street, and get $wept up with enthu$iasm, and go to a tournament the next day! The winner of THAT would still be an E, as well!

Do I feel the E1 and D1 tournaments constitute a way for marginally skilled fencers to get a 'label' that doesn't necessarily fit them, certainly, I do, but the age-group rule really doesn't change it that much...the 'opening' was already there on its own.

If you feel some of these 'E's aren't as good as you*, WAKE UP! All of the 'E's can not be equally skilled!

*(sorry Sam, I can't rememeber what class' you are...make it 'D's or 'C's or whatever...it's still the same.)

Do some division make a point of having more unclassified events, yes, they do. Is that 'cheating' or inflating the classifiactions, well, it might APPEAR that way, but perhaps, in your area (or other areas), people are actually DE-flating the classifications by NOT having a variety of events to offer appropriate opportunities for budding fencers to demonstrate skill they do have, and document the performance.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Chris
He explains them, yes, but he fails to defend them! His (and your) example of 6 10-year-olds fencing for one month, and one of them earning a classification as a 'problem' with the system is invalid, as A. they could JUST as easily be grown ups who have only fenced for 1 month, AND, for that matter, there's nothing to say they even have to fence for a month! They could literally walk-in to a club off of the street, and get $wept up with enthu$iasm, and go to a tournament the next day! The winner of THAT would still be an E, as well!

yes, but the issue is that if you hold an unclassified event, SOMEBODY who has more experience will likely come and win. by restricting it to under 10, you are not allowing those people to come and compete for the E. Thus, you are artificially lowering the level of the competition and still awarding the same rating.

Do I feel the E1 and D1 tournaments constitute a way for marginally skilled fencers to get a 'label' that doesn't necessarily fit them, certainly, I do, but the age-group rule really doesn't change it that much...the 'opening' was already there on its own.

it is a more major opening with the age group rule. E1 and D1 should be on the ratings chart, after all, there needs to be some way to create ratings other than at NACs, but again, by artificially preventing the U who should get the E from competing, you are making it harder.

If you feel some of these 'E's aren't as good as you*, WAKE UP! All of the 'E's can not be equally skilled!

Well, I should hope that the E's aren't as good as me, being a C and all!

Do some division make a point of having more unclassified events, yes, they do. Is that 'cheating' or inflating the classifiactions, well, it might APPEAR that way, but perhaps, in your area (or other areas), people are actually DE-flating the classifications by NOT having a variety of events to offer appropriate opportunities for budding fencers to demonstrate skill they do have, and document the performance.

well, again, the issue isn't creating ratings, but rather creating them while artificially preventing some of the more skilled U's from fencing.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
What is the difference between a rating being earned or created??

the difference is the existence of seed ratings. For all types of tournament except E1 and D1, you need ratings to get ratings. those two types of tournament can create ratings with no ratings present. This is why I feel that E1 and D1 should only be allowed to age unrestricted events, but all other ratings groups should be earnable at all events regardless of restriction. After all, if you have enough Y10 year olds with enough ratings, they should be able to give a new rating to the winner.

Why shouldn't 10 ten year olds in a meet get a D??

well, again, the reason I feel that they shouldn't get a created rating is because they may well be preventing the U who WOULD take the rating from competing through the age restriction. if you are going to create a rating, then you should at the very least allow ALL of the U's in the division to fence in it.

BTW in any club good luck that many under 10 kids in a local event.

yeah, I guess you're right. after all, the last New England event only drew 14 fencers in Y10 MF. it is clearly out of the question that they would draw 15.

BTW do not respond to what I say in posts like I am a simpleton. I assure you I understand the questions.

well, how about we make a deal: you actually READ my posts and PROGRESS in your arguments, rather than simply repeating what you said as if you hadn't heard anything, and I won't "respond ... like [you are] a simpleton", though to be honest I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. after all, what I clarified in that last post is that we were talking about local events. given that the post of yours I was responding to was talking as though we were referring to national youth events, I think it was reasonable for me to think that you had missed the local part.

I think you are being rude. I will wait for you to nit pick correct me on how wrong I am....

ya know, indignance, much like all things, is more effective in moderation. is your skin really so thin that you are getting offended by a simple discussion?? I mean, its not like i've insulted you personally, or something.

I don't find people try to get away with things like "creating a D." Most coaches just want the best for their students and like to give them all sorts of opportunities.

"get away with" isn't the issue! allowing local Y10's with no rated fencers to create ratings creates WEAK ratings. I'm not suggesting that people are conspiring to create ratings, just that allowing 6 unrated 10 year olds to create an E is a way to weaken ratings.
Again, I don't feel that this is a major issue. it doesn't really affect things THAT much. however, I do think that not allowing age restricted E1 and D1, but allowing all others age restricted would be the best of both worlds. it would allow legitimate ratings to come out of age restricted events, but would not allow for creation of ratings at age restricted events.
-m