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

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
The whole earned/created argument smacks of elitism, or sour grapes, or both. A few points:

how is it elitism? if they deserve the rating, they can earn it in age unrestricted competition. As for sour grapes, sour grapes concerning what????

1. The USFA makes no distinctions between 6 ten year olds or 6 60 year olds. If you have enough registered fencers, of whatever size or shape or level of argumentativeness, someone can earn a rating.

but we are not discussing what the rule IS, but rather what it SHOULD be. remember, prior to this year, the USFA did NOT give out ratings at age restricted events. As I have said, I do believe that the current rule is better than the old one. I also believe it could be even better if E1 and D1 could not be age restricted, but the others could.

2. Holding up kids in an unrated tournament as the cornerstone of a weakened rating system is a bit disingenous. Most adults fencers I know on the local level earned their first "E" at a designated unrated event...in several cases with very little experience. Was it created, or earned? And in a practical sense, what is the difference now in subsequent tournaments between a Y10 "E" and an adult "E" seedings-wise?

again, the difference is that in those designated U events, ANY U can fence, so the best U will get the rating. If you restrict it by age, than the U which deserves the E may not fall within that age range. by allowing such restricted groups to give ratings, you create E's which probably would not have been created at an age unrestricted U.

3. Of all the things on which the USFA needs to spend limited resources, a two tier ratings system to resolve the carpings of "Six kids and an "E" " malcontents isn't one of them. First of all...youth fencers need a ratings system for internal seedings in youth events. Just as ratings earned in youth events are applied to youth tournaments, ratings earned in open/adult events are applied to youth events as well. Secondly, the youth fencers that try to compete in the opens/Div3-Div1 level events also need to be seeded just as their adult counterparts do. One ratings system makes it easier to seamlessly integrate all fencers at any given meet.

a resources argument??? how long does it possibly take to add the line "age unrestricted" to D1 and E1?

Also, the issue is which is a better system, not which will be used. again, this is just a discussion of which is better, I really don't think this is that big an issue.

4. The unspoken argument being masked by the "created ratings weaken the seeding system" is that these complainers believe it's unfair for SOMEONE ELSE to get a pool with these "created" fencers. Of course, if they have 3 youth fencers, or for that matter three left-handed Latvian separatist octengenarion fencers who competed in the Greater Milwaukie Latvian Fencing Festival Unrated Open in their pool, are they going to go complain to the bout committee about ratings inflation? I think not.

that is actually NOT the "unspoken argument". after all, as I said, I don't really care. the issue is the integrity and usefulness of the rating system. I don't think this is a very big issue, but I do think that the method I proposed is clearly better for the sake of consistency. as for the latvian fencing festival, the only two words which matter are "unrated open". if its open to ALL unrated fencers, fine.

5. If a youth or a newbie adult can take their rating and run with it, more power to them. If they need more time and experience, so be it. Either way, the seeding system won't collapse under their weight.

true. this gets back to the point that its NOT A BIG DEAL! how about you stop trying to claim that I'm making it one and actually say whether or not you think the proposed idea would be an improvement, and why or why not? Discussion boards tend to work better if the discussion MOVES FORWARD.

-m

[vigia]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I'm not bummed, certainly, nor do I think this is a major issue, but this is a forum for discussing possible changes! I actually DO think that allowing ratings at age restricted events is an improvement over not, as the ratings deserved far outweigh the small situations being discussed here. however, we can have the best of both worlds by allowing ratings earned, but not created from nothing.

Exactly. It isn't a major issue (compared say, to getting rid of the flick in foil! ). What Mike proposes would be a small change that would just make a little more sense than the actual rule they did came up with. If the USFA had put the minor thought and discussion into it as we have over the last couple of days, maybe they would have arrived at this conclusion themselves. Part of my original post was a sense that this rule change wasn't particularly well thought through by the USFA, and I stand by that. Earth shattering? Of course not. Is anybody harmed? No. The wheat will sort from the chaff on the piste all of its own accord. None of that invalidates the argument that a slight change would be better.

[edew]

I can see why Chris prefers "classification" over "ratings". While ratings is much easier to type than classification (although I'm getting pretty quick about it), "ratings" imply a sense of better versus worse, whereas "classification" has less of that implication.

Beauty queens are rated 1 to 10. Snakes are classified as venomous or non-venomous. In the former, there's a sense of better or worse (10 being better than an 1). In the latter, there's no particular sense of better or worse: if you're venomous, you're venomous.

Thus, by keeping the description of the letter classification as a classification, I think it might help, to some degree, maintain the sense of neutrality that they infer.

Remember, folks, the classification is just for seeding purposes only, not a mark of attained skill, nor should it ever be construed as such.

Your first place finishes or silver medals are to distinguish your skills over your competitors.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
how is it elitism? if they deserve the rating, they can earn it in age unrestricted competition. As for sour grapes, sour grapes concerning what????

The initial post used words like absurd and wrong, and complained about the perceived lower quality of rated youth fencers. It came across to me as sour grapes. As far as elitism...look at your wording. If they "deserve" it? If they compete under USFA rules, and successfully gain a ranking, they've done all they need to earn (or deserve) it.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
but we are not discussing what the rule IS, but rather what it SHOULD be. remember, prior to this year, the USFA did NOT give out ratings at age restricted events. [/quote]

Actually, that's not true. At the NAC level the past several years, winners and high placers of the "Youth" events received ratings, without distinction made for age...merely the number of entrants and their rankings/finishings per the USFA table.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
again, the difference is that in those designated U events, ANY U can fence, so the best U will get the rating. If you restrict it by age, than the U which deserves the E may not fall within that age range. by allowing such restricted groups to give ratings, you create E's which probably would not have been created at an age unrestricted U.[/quote]

Again, an argument that doesn't hold all its water. I've been to a number of unrated, unrestricted events at which the winner of the coveted "E" was a youth fencer, who trampled over the backs of many other adult entrants. In one case, almost all the top eight were youths over the competing adults. In this scenario, you could just as easily make the converse argument that for adults, it would be more fair to make it an age restricted 20+ event. Neither would be valid. Again, you go back to the "deserve" word. You deserve the rating when you win it under the rules, no more, no less.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
a resources argument??? how long does it possibly take to add the line "age unrestricted" to D1 and E1?[/quote]
Let's not get into the argument of how fast it takes the USFA to process anything...otherwise uncontrollable sobbing will break out. After every meet, paperwork must be filed with the USFA for ratings changes. Why add another tier, and make them keep two tracks for youth fencers...one rating for youth events, and one for when they fence in the opens/NACs? If, as you say, this is "no big deal", why bother adding another burden to the data processors?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
that is actually NOT the "unspoken argument". after all, as I said, I don't really care. the issue is the integrity and usefulness of the rating system. [/quote]
If it's not the core of the argument--that having a "youth E" from an age restricted event somehow pollutes the pools due to improper seeding--then what is the problem? And if it's not a problem, then the current system will work just fine. One easy to understand batch of ratings for everyone, and let the best fencer win.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
true. this gets back to the point that its NOT A BIG DEAL! how about you stop trying to claim that I'm making it one and actually say whether or not you think the proposed idea would be an improvement, and why or why not? Discussion boards tend to work better if the discussion MOVES FORWARD.[/quote]

My quote was: "If a youth or a newbie adult can take their rating and run with it, more power to them. If they need more time and experience, so be it. Either way, the seeding system won't collapse under their weight. "

In what way did that imply that you were making a big deal out of anything? I've already covered why I think the system works as is, and why the two tier system is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Oh, and thanks for thoughtfully putting MOVES FORWARD in all caps so I could be sure to SEE WHAT WAS IMPORTANT.

Historically, I'm not sure you're the best poster boy for keeping the discussion MOVING FORWARD. Endless repetitive arguing, now...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
The initial post used words like absurd and wrong, and complained about the perceived lower quality of rated youth fencers. It came across to me as sour grapes. As far as elitism...look at your wording. If they "deserve" it? If they compete under USFA rules, and successfully gain a ranking, they've done all they need to earn (or deserve) it.

um, I think you have me confused with somebody else. I didn't start this thread, remember.

Actually, that's not true. At the NAC level the past several years, winners and high placers of the "Youth" events received ratings, without distinction made for age...merely the number of entrants and their rankings/finishings per the USFA table.

Again, we are talking about LOCAL events! in past years, LOCAL age restricted events could not give ratings. Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that prior to the rules change only national championships could give age restricted ratings, not NACs. could be wrong about that, though, I'm not 100% sure.

Again, an argument that doesn't hold all its water. I've been to a number of unrated, unrestricted events at which the winner of the coveted "E" was a youth fencer, who trampled over the backs of many other adult entrants. In one case, almost all the top eight were youths over the competing adults. In this scenario, you could just as easily make the converse argument that for adults, it would be more fair to make it an age restricted 20+ event. Neither would be valid. Again, you go back to the "deserve" word. You deserve the rating when you win it under the rules, no more, no less.

My argument holds water with your example. in your example, the youth fencer is the one who deserves an E. fine. then he gets it, at a non age restricted event. It is NOT more fair to hold a 20+ only event, nor does that proposal follow in ANY WAY from my argument. in fact, tit is very clear where my argument fits in this situation: were you to hold a seniors only unclassified event, I would feel that the winner of that shouldn't get an E either. Simply put, I feel that unclassified events which create ratings should be open to anybody who is unclassified. to artificially limit it further, be it youth, cadet, junior, senior, or vet leads to weak ratings.

Let's not get into the argument of how fast it takes the USFA to process anything...otherwise uncontrollable sobbing will break out. After every meet, paperwork must be filed with the USFA for ratings changes. Why add another tier, and make them keep two tracks for youth fencers...one rating for youth events, and one for when they fence in the opens/NACs? If, as you say, this is "no big deal", why bother adding another burden to the data processors?

um, you clearly misunderstand my proposal. I am not proposing a seperate rating system for youths. All I am proposing is not allowing youth tournaments to be E1 or D1. thus, you can still earn ratings at a youth event, if you have enough rated fencers at the youth, but you can't create ratings with 6 unclassified youths. the ratings earned, though, would be the same as any earned through any other method. it is a VERY simple, one line change to the ratings chart, and NO extra work for the national office, and I think it would satisfy both sides in this discussion if they actually took the time to READ, COMPREHEND, and CONSIDER.

If it's not the core of the argument--that having a "youth E" from an age restricted event somehow pollutes the pools due to improper seeding--then what is the problem? And if it's not a problem, then the current system will work just fine. One easy to understand batch of ratings for everyone, and let the best fencer win.

again, I am NOT suggesting a different rating system for youths. Problem? there isn't a major one. yes, the current system will, and does, work fine. the one I propose will work better. since when is adequacy a reason to not look for improvement???

My quote was: "If a youth or a newbie adult can take their rating and run with it, more power to them. If they need more time and experience, so be it. Either way, the seeding system won't collapse under their weight. "

In what way did that imply that you were making a big deal out of anything? I've already covered why I think the system works as is, and why the two tier system is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Oh, and thanks for thoughtfully putting MOVES FOREWARD in all caps so I could be sure to SEE WHAT WAS IMPORTANT.

Historically, I'm not sure you're the best poster boy for keeping the discussion MOVING FORWARD. Endless repetitive arguing, now...

whatever. Now that I have clarified that a two tier system is AT NO TIME what I was suggesting, can you move on to what I actually DID suggest?

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
um, I think you have me confused with somebody else. I didn't start this thread, remember.

That's why I said initial post. To say that adults in a open "deserve" a rating more than youths in a restricted event still smacks of elitism.

Originally posted by epeemike81
Again, we are talking about LOCAL events! in past years, LOCAL age restricted events could not give ratings. Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that prior to the rules change only national championships could give age restricted ratings, not NACs. could be wrong about that, though, I'm not 100% sure.

Your post said: QUOTE][[/i]prior to this year, the USFA did NOT give out ratings at age restricted events..[/quote] Without a "local" qualifier in your assertion, it seemed you were making a blanket statement about all NACs. Pardon my confusion from taking you literally.

Originally posted by epeemike81
My argument holds water with your example. (snip) Simply put, I feel that unclassified events which create ratings should be open to anybody who is unclassified. to artificially limit it further, be it youth, cadet, junior, senior, or vet leads to weak ratings.

As pointed out by myself and others, it's a supposition that is not always true. Given the same set of unclassified youths and seniors, making it an open does not in and of itself make it more likely that one or the other age group will prevail...so you can't make the blanket assessment that the winner of a youth meet is necessarily a weaker rating.

Originally posted by epeemike81
um, you clearly misunderstand my proposal. I am not proposing a seperate rating system for youths. All I am proposing is not allowing youth tournaments to be E1 or D1. (snip) and I think it would satisfy both sides in this discussion if they actually took the time to READ, COMPREHEND, and CONSIDER.

Let me take this moment to say: my bad. Vigia's original post mentioned the concept of separate youth ratings:

Originally posted by vigia
if divisions want to distinguish among various youth fencers for seeding purposes, they are certainly entitled to issue Youth ratings YE, YD, YC if they want

but I missed the part about keeping it in the divisional level. Accordingly, I thought we were discussing substituting those ratings nationally for the current system in youth events. If only someone had told me earlier that I had to COMPREHEND!

Originally posted by epeemike81
[b] whatever.

Oooh. Now that plains hurts.

Originally posted by epeemike81
Now that I have clarified that a two tier system is AT NO TIME what I was suggesting, can you move on to what I actually DID suggest?

Alrighty, then. We've already gone back and forth over the validity of ratings issued at youth vs open. Here's another line of thought.

For youth fencers who wish to or are competing on a national level, ratings play a part at the NACs. Just as earning a rating at a local open can pay benefits for an adult when going to further national competitions, earning a rating at a local youth tournament can pay benefits for the youth fencer when fencing at a NAC against other youths.

In that case, it's kids against kids. Apparently the USFA decided it was unfair to deny them the same ratings path advantages when competing among themselves that adult fencers already enjoy. The fact that they can bring their "E" rating to a subsequent open competition is of little consequence.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
That's why I said initial post. To say that adults in a open "deserve" a rating more than youths in a restricted event still smacks of elitism.

your phrasing is wrong. Its not tht ADULTS in an open deserve a rating more than YOUTHS in restricted events, its that ANYBODY who wins an unrestricted event deserves a rating more than ANYBODY who wins ANY age restricted event. Why should different rules apply to kids than adults? the issue is that under the current rules it is easier for a 10 year old to earn an E than it is for an adult of similar skill level. how is wanting to level the playing field elitist? you keep saying that its just the same for 6 ten year olds as 6 adults. its not. the ten year olds can compete in the unrestricted with the adults, the adults can't compete with the 10 year olds.

As pointed out by myself and others, it's a supposition that is not always true. Given the same set of unclassified youths and seniors, making it an open does not in and of itself make it more likely that one or the other age group will prevail...so you can't make the blanket assessment that the winner of a youth meet is necessarily a weaker rating.

it doesn't need to ALWAYS be true! allowing ratings in age restricted events leads to more weak ratings. that doesn't mean every rating earned at a restricted event is weak. the point is that those which AREN'T weak can be earned at unrestricted events. so, stopping age restricted events from creating ratings would eliminate the weak ratings, while the strong would be earned at unrestricted events. The fact that some of these ratings are fitting (and there is certainly no denying that they are) isn't important. the important issue is general trends, which in this case is a trend toward weaker ratings by allowing ratings to come from age restricted events.

For youth fencers who wish to or are competing on a national level, ratings play a part at the NACs. Just as earning a rating at a local open can pay benefits for an adult when going to further national competitions, earning a rating at a local youth tournament can pay benefits for the youth fencer when fencing at a NAC against other youths.

granted. which is why they can earn a rating at a non age restricted event!

In that case, it's kids against kids. Apparently the USFA decided it was unfair to deny them the same ratings path advantages when competing among themselves that adult fencers already enjoy. The fact that they can bring their "E" rating to a subsequent open competition is of little consequence.

apparently they did. I disagree. what is unfair is to make it easier for the kids to earn ratings than adults (or vice versa). I think that this policy creates even more inconsistency in an already inconsistant system. this can be easily remedied while still awarding ratings in events with well rated fencers in them by simply eliminating the possibility of E1 and D1 for age restricted events.

-m

[Chris]

Originally posted by epeemike81
how is it elitism? if they deserve the rating, they can earn it in age unrestricted competition. As for sour grapes, sour grapes concerning what????

Perhaps that you, or at least, most certainly others, feel that these kids will be 'getting something cheap' which was 'earned' by others with more difficulty.

[quote](snippity-snip)
If you restrict it by age, than the U which deserves the E may not fall within that age range. by allowing such restricted groups to give ratings, you create E's which probably would not have been created at an age unrestricted U.
[quote]

(Although I have been mistaken regarding my clarity in the past) I thought I was pretty clear about this, before, (and may even have over-stated the case) - perhaps E-Mike didn't quite catch it, but, the Operations Manual implies that events are/were expected to either restricted for age, or classification, unless expressly announced as BOTH. Of course, up until last fall, there was only marginal reason to do BOTH: Perhaps THIS is where we could make E-Mike happy, and prohibit combined restrictions.

(snip) Also, the issue is which is a better system, not which will be used. again, this is just a discussion of which is better, I really don't think this is that big an issue.

that is actually NOT the "unspoken argument". after all, as I said, I don't really care. the issue is the integrity and usefulness of the rating system. I don't think this is a very big issue, but I do think that the method I proposed is clearly better for the sake of consistency.(snip)

COnsistency with what? The system had inconsistencies, before, still does now, and would, under your suggested modification. Much of this, as I said before, is actually based on the inconsistency of people, and the inconsistent distribution of competitiive fencers.

Granted, I can see where your idea would have constituted a more conservative change from what was enacted, the point was that while kids are at a slight disadvantage against adults, the system was generally, grossly under-acknowledging their development.

Perhaps there will be several areas where some wholesale changes of classification will result: C'est le Vie! This can just as easily be seen as correcting what was previously inconsistent before.

As I have said, elsewhare, I think a lot of this would be moot, if we used a system that did not essentially based on a peak performance. i.e. a system that took into account repeated performance at a certain 'level' would be a good bit better than what we have now, which essentially, only cares about your best performance of the last year, and, in fact allows 1 good performance to help you for 4 years.



Fence On!

[Chris]

Originally posted by edew
I can see why Chris prefers "classification" over "ratings". While ratings is much easier to type than classification (although I'm getting pretty quick about it), "ratings" imply a sense of better versus worse, whereas "classification" has less of that implication.

No! You can NOT agree with me!
I refuse to allow it!

While you make a good point, and it's true enough; I mainly stick with using the word classification, of which I make the impromptu contraction of class'n or class'd, because that's what it says in the Op's Manual (with the exception of 1 place, most certainly a mistake made by someone not well-acquainted with the document they were editting.)

Remember, folks, the classification is just for seeding purposes only, not a mark of attained skill, nor should it ever be construed as such.

Your first place finishes or silver medals are to distinguish your skills over your competitors.

Indeed!

Fence ON!

[Mo]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
For youth fencers who wish to or are competing on a national level, ratings play a part at the NACs. Just as earning a rating at a local open can pay benefits for an adult when going to further national competitions, earning a rating at a local youth tournament can pay benefits for the youth fencer when fencing at a NAC against other youths.

In that case, it's kids against kids. Apparently the USFA decided it was unfair to deny them the same ratings path advantages when competing among themselves that adult fencers already enjoy. The fact that they can bring their "E" rating to a subsequent open competition is of little consequence.

Which brings me back to my original point:
It does not matter if a Y10 or Y12 kid has a rating going into an NAC Competition because, kids have different criteria, especially kids in Y10 and Y12 which is what the thread started with, as in 6 ten year old fencers.

They cannot on a whim decide to enter an open event at an NAC.
The USFA has strict age and rating requirements.
They have to work their way up to fence older events. The E or D they were awarded in a Youth event will not do them any good in anything OTHER than another youth event. Even then if they are a Y10 or Y12 fencer, they cannot fence in Y14 national championships without qualifying first UNLESS they already have points in Y14 even if they somehow received an A. There are very very few Y12 fencers that have ever done that much less a Y10 fencer.

Any Open event in a division is just for fun. It has no earth shaking ramification that will help the young fencer in anything another than a youth event. .

It seems to me in an open event, the best fencer wins. The seeding doesn't matter, the performance does.
Because of this, it's an excellent idea to make it possible for the winner of a y10 or y12 event to get an "E" or "D,`" is just a way to improve the interest and pool of young fencers, an workable idea on the part of the USFA!!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Chris
COnsistency with what? The system had inconsistencies, before, still does now, and would, under your suggested modification. Much of this, as I said before, is actually based on the inconsistency of people, and the inconsistent distribution of competitiive fencers.

of course it would still be inconsistent, but it would be MORE consistent.

Granted, I can see where your idea would have constituted a more conservative change from what was enacted, the point was that while kids are at a slight disadvantage against adults, the system was generally, grossly under-acknowledging their development.

how did it under-acknowledge their development? when they were good enough to earn the rating relative to ALL competition, not just people their age, they got one.

As I have said, elsewhare, I think a lot of this would be moot, if we used a system that did not essentially based on a peak performance. i.e. a system that took into account repeated performance at a certain 'level' would be a good bit better than what we have now, which essentially, only cares about your best performance of the last year, and, in fact allows 1 good performance to help you for 4 years.



Fence On!

well, I agree with you there. I think we can all agree that the whole system isn't very good.

-m

[135711]

doens't it all play out in the end? after a while, as you move up in ratings, it becomes increasingly difficult, like, especially after your C, doesn't it become very difficult? you can stay in C forever, then a major push later, to B and so forth? [like those tests on computers you answer one correctly, the next one is harder, then the more you answer, the harder the test gets?]

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
. Its not tht ADULTS in an open deserve a rating more than YOUTHS in restricted events, its that ANYBODY who wins an unrestricted event deserves a rating more than ANYBODY who wins ANY age restricted event. Why should different rules apply to kids than adults?.

Why should the rules be any different for kids? Under the new rules, six kids earn the same rating as six adults. That part confers rule equality. The age restriction poses a minor quirk, but it also works the other way. A 12 year old with a "D" earned in open competitions can't fence Div 3/2 events without having worked up through the national points list in Y14, cadet and junior, but I don't see anyone complaining about dilution of the USFA pool system because of their exclusion. Yet a 30 year old "E" competes unrestricted. Where is the age-blind parity in that?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
the issue is that under the current rules it is easier for a 10 year old to earn an E than it is for an adult of similar skill level. how is wanting to level the playing field elitist? you keep saying that its just the same for 6 ten year olds as 6 adults. its not. the ten year olds can compete in the unrestricted with the adults, the adults can't compete with the 10 year olds.[/quote]

Yet, how is that different IN PRINCIPLE from other exclusionary meets? Div 3 is limited to "U" "E" and "D" fencers...winner gets a "C". Yet, that makes it easier for them to earn a "C" than those who have to fence Div2/Div1, because the pool of fencers is kept artificially weak, compared to the pool of potential fencers. Is it your contention, then, that in the interest of total parity, we should all be forced to fence in one category, with "U" fencers competing with "A"s for ratings?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
so, stopping age restricted events from creating ratings would eliminate the weak ratings, while the strong would be earned at unrestricted events. [/quote]

The jury is still out on whether even "weak" ratings have much impact in the larger events. If, as you admit, not all youth ratings are weak, and not all open ratings are strong...then why not just let them fence it out when and where they meet?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
granted. which is why they can earn a rating at a non age restricted event![/quote]

Let's postulate for a moment that most Y10-14 fencers will be competing against other youth fencers, at least on the national level. Why make them then compete against adults instead of their peer group?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
[b]I think that this policy creates even more inconsistency in an already inconsistant system. [b][/quote]
If the system is already inconsistent, then how does this ratings blip substantially alter the course of any given tournament? This seems much like a no harm/no foul situation.

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
of course it would still be inconsistent, but it would be MORE consistent.

how did it under-acknowledge their development? when they were good enough to earn the rating relative to ALL competition, not just people their age, they got one.

well, I agree with you there. I think we can all agree that the whole system isn't very good.

-m

The current system is not only good, it's very good. It does its job quickly and simply and does not require a lot of overhead to maintain it. It's easy for people to determine what their new classification is, if any, and simple to follow.

What makes a good classification system are:
* easy to implement
* clear to understand for most people
* has some relevance

That's it. It's not a badge of honor to be an A-classified fencer. It's the privilege to be seeded higher at the start of a competition because of that classification, though. And that's all it's intended for. Once the seeding is done, it's up to the fencer to do his or her best to try to attain the highest possible finish.

Please folks, don't read any more into the classification other than what it's purpose is, to help initially seed the tournament.