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

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Chris
I think we NEED more weaker classifications: when only 30-40% of the competitors are classified, inconsistencies in people's class'ns will have much more impact, considering that there can be fairly broad range of skills in unclass'd people, as well, it is barely reasonable to expect equitable distribution of skill at the beginning.

A system which could account for about 3/4 of the participants would probably be expected to yield more consistent results...Of course, since the whole concept of attaining a higher classification relies on beating, or at the least, finishing ahead of a higher class'd fencer (which SHOULD mean that SOMEbody beat somebody ELSE who is class'd higher than them; unless we go up to North Dakota, again, and it's POSSIBLE to for someone to get a B, without actually even fencing either an 'A' OR a 'B', or even having any lower class'd people beat higher class'd people...), so, by DEFINITON, the system would NOT EVEN WORK AT ALL, if there weren't inconsistencies: we could only become classified at National events, if, an only if, not many top people showed up.

where are you getting your numbers?

A lot of kids simply don't compete with adults, for quite some time, until they can really hold their own, despite the disadvatage of their size, etc..., and frankly from what I have seen, it's hard to blame them...but that's another thread.

EXACTLY! they don't compete against adults because they CAN'T HOLD THEIR OWN YET. and yet you want them to get the same rating????

I see Mike's point, somewhat, yet feel a different remedy would be easer to implement, and easier to REMEMBER, and MIGHT actually have a chance of becoming adopted: Instead of any sort of double system, or bifucated rule, I think the USFA should simply, and clearly, prohibit results from any events with DOUBLE restrictions of age AND classification, (or anything else) from being accepted for new classifications. As I said, before, the Op's Manual had already indicated this was not the primary sort of thing that was to be done to begin with, and now that there is a stronger reason to WANT to do it, they should have given it more thought.

Fence On!

what is hard to implement?? my suggestion would take all of three seconds to implement. ad the phrase "non age restricted" to the requirements of E1 and D1 on the current ratings chart. DONE! FINISHED! that's it!

how is that hard to implement??

-m

[vigia]

Originally posted by Chris
The competitive advantage of being classified higher is ALWAYS there, it's just a question how shallow your analysis is. And people have a right to be concerned about it, the the equity with which people attain it.

Exactly. I do apologize for the tone of my original post, which I must admit did smack of sour grapes. This states the case much more clearly.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by vigia
Exactly. I do apologize for the tone of my original post, which I must admit did smack of sour grapes.

As you were saying, mike?

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike
As for sour grapes, sour grapes concerning what????[/quote]

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
the youth wasn't good enough to earn one at the U, but gets one anyway because he can fence an event that adult U's can't. that is inequality, since if the adult can't earn it in an unrestricted U, he is SOL.

I once pointed out to a frustrated cadet fencer in our club (who was perturbed at the attention being paid to a much younger female national champion) that if he was fencing 10 year old girls, he'd be a national champion, too.

In its benevolent wisdom, the USFA has chosen to make all sorts of age/sex/classification restrictions that artificially limit the kinds of competitions that take place. This discussion is about but one of those. Sure, an unrated adult can look with envy at a youth tournament. But even if there are soon hordes of ankle-biting, "E"-rated ten year olds storming the bastions of civilized fencing, I fail to see any long term negative impact. If, instead, it promotes the sport of fencing and gives some initial encouragement to an incoming crop of future fencers, all the better.

If, as a crusty, battle-hardened but unrated fencer, you (and by you, I don't necessarily mean YOU, mike) can't get past the thought of this extra restriction without apoplexy, then perhaps it's time to take stock of what else is going on in your life.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
ratings restricted events CAN'T give the same ratings as non ratings restricted events. why, then, do you insist that age restricted events should be able to give the same ratings as non age restricted events? Thank you for bringing up such a useful example![/quote]

Because there are all sorts of USFA-mandated restrictions on all kinds of competitions. They have merely chosen to extend the concept to youth events. If a club holds a USFA-sanctioned event, be it a "Y-10", "Red Haired Lefties Only", "Bring Your Granny To Fencing", or "No One Named Mike May Fence" event, and they are all USFA members in good standing, then ratings can be awarded based on number of participants and their current ratings. That's it...no different in principle than any other restricted USFA event.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
again, I ask why you seem to feel that adequacy is an argument for complacency?? "good enough" is not the same as "best". [/quote]

Actually, I think adding youth tournaments to the mix WAS an improvement to the overall sport. What I wonder about is why you feel so disturbed at the prospect of meeting a 12 year old girl with a newly-minted "E" at your next open.

QUOTE]Originally posted by epeemike81
again, you go back to national level.... the issue is LOCAL. I don't know how I can make this more clear!
L-O-C-A-L. As in NOT NATIONAL.[/quote]

Oh, geez...is THAT how you spell it? Wait, let me get a pencil....
L.......O......no K here?

[135711]

I have no problem with kids getting A's, do I understand that some people feel insulted that a kid earns A, while the adult had to shlog for years? it's understandable, but the system is set up in such a way that it is possible for a kid to get an A. I don't like Bye's. That one is a total rip, for the fencer who likes to warm up a bit, only to find out that you can't fence someone because of the bye system, is a pain.

[Chris]

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

Yes, but that is where the information is most lacking...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
As you were saying, mike?

I was saying I had no sour grapes, and no reason to have sour grapes. as for vigia, well, thats his business.

-m

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo

In its benevolent wisdom, the USFA has chosen to make all sorts of age/sex/classification restrictions that artificially limit the kinds of competitions that take place. This discussion is about but one of those. Sure, an unrated adult can look with envy at a youth tournament. But even if there are soon hordes of ankle-biting, "E"-rated ten year olds storming the bastions of civilized fencing, I fail to see any long term negative impact. If, instead, it promotes the sport of fencing and gives some initial encouragement to an incoming crop of future fencers, all the better.

If, as a crusty, battle-hardened but unrated fencer, you (and by you, I don't necessarily mean YOU, mike) can't get past the thought of this extra restriction without apoplexy, then perhaps it's time to take stock of what else is going on in your life.

That would be fine if said ankle biters didn't mix with the rest of us. This is not a discussion about fencer A being envious of not being eligible for a specific honor. Fencer A IS eligible, it's just that fencer B is being given an easier shot at it. And then fencer A and fencer B are compared as if they had had an equal opportunity. Do I care about the fact that I will never make the Y10 WF points list? No. Would I care if while going after a spot on the senior MS points list that everyone named Bob got points for making the 64 while I was required to make the 32? Yes. I'm not SUPPOSED to be compared to Y10 WF points holders, whereas I AM supposed to be compared to Senior MS points holders.

You argument still doesn't come close to addressing the issue that over-rated fencers (and under-rated fencers too for that matter, but this problem won't create lots of them) make for less fair seeding of tournaments. Less fair seeding results in less fair tournaments. There's a REASON we use classifications for seeding tournaments (and if you agree with EDew that classifications are ONLY for this purpose, it's the sole raison d'etre for them). It's to make the tournaments more fair. Things that make the classification system less accurate (as a predictor/measurement of relative ability) make the tournaments less fair. I want fair tournaments. Therefore I want a classification system that can as closely as possible approximate the actual relative rankings of a set of fencers. While getting a perfect ranking would be extremely difficult, the closer to it we are, the better the events are.

Because there are all sorts of USFA-mandated restrictions on all kinds of competitions. They have merely chosen to extend the concept to youth events. If a club holds a USFA-sanctioned event, be it a "Y-10", "Red Haired Lefties Only", "Bring Your Granny To Fencing", or "No One Named Mike May Fence" event, and they are all USFA members in good standing, then ratings can be awarded based on number of participants and their current ratings. That's it...no different in principle than any other restricted USFA event.

I would have a problem with any of those giving ratings as well. Fortunately they aren't common (I haven't heard of any such tournaments). The problem is that age-restricted events ARE common. In fact every division is requried to run a number of them each year. What's more, it can clearly be shown that some of these restrictions (specifically the lower age limits) can exclude nearly every good fencer in a local area. That then allows events to give ratings to people that aren't good (and here I'm taking a fairly loose definition of good as in good enough to be in the top 30-40% of the USFA that is rated).

Actually, I think adding youth tournaments to the mix WAS an improvement to the overall sport. What I wonder about is why you feel so disturbed at the prospect of meeting a 12 year old girl with a newly-minted "E" at your next open.

I agree that adding junior, cadet, and vet events was an improvement. When we start getting into the youth range however there are too few good fencers. Many areas of the country won't have ANY Y14 fencers that would be good enough to earn a rating against open (open age as opposed to open rating) competition. Yet those areas will soon be giving SOMEONE ratings. This decreases as a problem in the other age groups because a) the fencers on average are better, and b) there are more fencers so the top ones (the ones earning ratings) will be better, generally good enough that they should have the ratings even under the old system.

I'm not disturbed with the prospect of meeting an over-rated 12 year-old E. That's probably a touch or so less that I just gave up. That's actually exactly why I DON'T want it. It's unfair. I now have an advantage. Maybe next time she's in another pool and I'm at a disadvantage. I'd prefer if the field were level EVERY time. Do I care that she has an E? No. What I care about is that she's made the tournament that I'm fencing in less level. That's true whether she's in my pool or not.

Okay, I'm arguing a slightly different set of ideas than Epeemike. I'd welcome comments from his critics about my points. To briefly sum up (I had a much longer post that was swollowed into the ether of the Net and don't feel inspired to retype everything):

We should all want fair tournaments. A fair tournament includes, among other things, balanced pools. Unbalanced pools are a bad thing, this is the whole point of using classifications to seed tournaments. Balanced pools are best obtained by knowing an exact ranking of all of the fencers and dividing them among the pools such that fencers of a given level are equally distributed. Unfortunately an exact ranking is nearly impossible to get a priori. The classification system that we have is a rough approximation of such a ranking system that works fairly well with very little overhead cost. Things that make the classification system less accurate will make the seeding list less accurate and therefore the pools less balanced. Therefore things that make the classification system less accurate are to be avoided if possible. If anyone has an argument to the above points I'd love to hear them. Until then I'll take them as my set of givens.

SOME of the results from tournaments that have restrictions will be different from those in open competitions. SOME youth events will have NO fencers that are capable of earning a rating in a non-age-restricted event. SOME of these fencers will earn ratings that they could not otherwise get. These fencers will subsequently compete in non-age-restricted events where those ratings will be treated on par with ratings earned by fencers limited to non-restricted events. Relative to the average fencer in these non-restricted events our hypothetical youth fencer is not as good as those with the same rating. Whatever pool this fencer endds up in will therefore be weaker than anticipated by the seeding method. This gives every fencer in that pool and advantage and every fencer in every other pool a disadvantage. This is unfair.

Whether classifications are used solely to seed tournaments or whether they have additional value (which I believe, but which is irrelevant to this argument), it should be easy to see that having ANY source of mis-valued ratings (of any type of any source) is a bad thing. It makes for less fair future tournaments. Is this the only source of mis-valued ratings? No. Is it a source of mis-valued ratings? Yes. Could it be removed easily, thereby improving the system (improving here is defined as making more accurate and therefore more fair for everyone)? I used to think not until I read Epeemike's suggestion of making E1 and D1 events have to be non-age-restricted. A very minor change. Doesn't require any additional overhead. Suddenly nearly all of the problem goes away. It even fixes both the hard to deal with cases where cadet/junior/vet events don't have strength (as mentioned previously this doesn't happen as often as with youth so is a less pressing issue) and the case where there is a youth event with strength (also very rare).

Do I think this solution will be taken? No. I expect that this summer a new announcement will be made that starting next season age-restricted events where the age is 14 or less will not be rated again, while age-restricted events with an age limit above that get to continue being rated. This doesn't, in my opinion, fix the problem as well as epeemike's suggestion (because of the two rare but hard to deal with cases I mentioned), but will mostly fix the problem (the two cases ARE rare). So I expect the problem to mostly be removed for next season.

-B :)

[Chris]

Originally posted by epeemike81
where are you getting your numbers?

Which numbers are you talking about?

EXACTLY! they don't compete against adults because they CAN'T HOLD THEIR OWN YET. and yet you want them to get the same rating????

For a guy who criticizes other people's logic, yours is not very good! I made no statement from which you could draw that conclusion.

Many small kids are withheld from competition with adults by their parents, (some of whom have read your opinions on corps-a-corps), or are really just to busy to go to every tournament, and choose to go to the ones that seem more attractive to them, and more closely fit their goals, and objectives.

Many of these kids really CAN hold their own, skill-wise, but there is perhaps, a little concern about their fencing someone who is literally 4 times bigger than them.

what is hard to implement?? my suggestion would take all of three seconds to implement. ad the phrase "non age restricted" to the requirements of E1 and D1 on the current ratings chart. DONE! FINISHED! that's it!

how is that hard to implement??

-m

Well, it adds yet another conditional, 'what-if' question to the whole process.

Now that you have been so adamant it asking people what they think of your idea, why don't you say what you think of mine?

NO events should have more than one restriction.
Simpler to state, understand and implement; applies to all events equally.

Well?

[vigia]

Originally posted by Chris
NO events should have more than one restriction.
Simpler to state, understand and implement; applies to all events equally.

As far as I know, that is the case now -- at the local level, there are age-restricted events (Y10, Y12, Y14, Cadet, Junior) and there are classifications restricted events (Novice, U, E, D, C) I've never seen a tournament published as 'B' at a local level, so I'm leaving that out, and the the Opens are completely unrestricted. So as it stands, there are no "dual-restriction" events to eliminate. I'm not sure what you are talking about...

[135711]

then there are age restrictions, okay; then we have mens events and womens' events separate -okay; then we have 'open' unrestricted events....why open unrestricted; why not a category for mixed+restricted and take away the open thing?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by oiuyt
That would be fine if said ankle biters didn't mix with the rest of us. This is not a discussion about fencer A being envious of not being eligible for a specific honor. Fencer A IS eligible, it's just that fencer B is being given an easier shot at it.

I'll start by saying I agree with almost everything that is contained in your post. I just put a different spin on it: a tad less of epeemike's "Chicken Little" and a tad more "c'est la vie"

Originally posted by oiuyt
Your argument still doesn't come close to addressing the issue that over-rated fencers (and under-rated fencers too for that matter, but this problem won't create lots of them) make for less fair seeding of tournaments (snip) Things that make the classification system less accurate (as a predictor/measurement of relative ability) make the tournaments less fair. I want fair tournaments.

A truly fair tournament is a great target, but one that can't be hit even with a MOAB-class munition. Sure, there are all kinds of incremental steps you can take, but once you start, where do you stop? At the local open: no mixed events? Adults only? NRPL only? NAC-earned classifications only?

Originally posted by oiuyt
What's more, it can clearly be shown that some of these restrictions (specifically the lower age limits) can exclude nearly every good fencer in a local area. That then allows events to give ratings to people that aren't good (and here I'm taking a fairly loose definition of good as in good enough to be in the top 30-40% of the USFA that is rated).

Generally true, but only to a point. In our town, there are two clubs who can put on a "B" rated event with only Y14 and under fencers. In fact, last weekend, we had an open, about half adults/half cadet or younger. No adult (including a "C") finished in the top four. The winning cadet re-earned a "B" won at a Div 2 NAC meet. (Yet the "A" in the meet was a Y-12 girl, who has earned and re-earned her "A" at the NAC level. Is that as "fair" a "B" rated meet as if it were a male adult fencer competing who earned his "A" fencing solely at local East Coast events, but never getting that high it at a NAC?)

An unranked Y14 event here produces a much stronger fencer than one in Ft. Peck, Montana. An unranked Y14 meet here will probably also produce a stronger "E" than an unranked meet of our area's adult fencers. How do you assess the relative strengths of the youth "E" vs the adult "E" at the next open to assure fairness? That's just in one tiny corner of the country. Extrapolate it out to include all the nation's pool of fencers, and ratings parity is a will o' the wisp.

Originally posted by oiuyt
This decreases as a problem in the other age groups because a) the fencers on average are better, and b) there are more fencers so the top ones (the ones earning ratings) will be better, generally good enough that they should have the ratings even under the old system.

Which was my thinking in saying a horde of young "E" fencers will not bring the system to its knees. Eventually, they will tend to filter into the mainstream as they get older.

Originally posted by oiuyt
I'm not disturbed with the prospect of meeting an over-rated 12 year-old E. That's probably a touch or so less that I just gave up. That's actually exactly why I DON'T want it. It's unfair. I now have an advantage. Maybe next time she's in another pool and I'm at a disadvantage. I'd prefer if the field were level EVERY time. Do I care that she has an E? No. What I care about is that she's made the tournament that I'm fencing in less level. That's true whether she's in my pool or not.

That was my hypothesis of why this argument was being made in the first place. If she's in my pool, Whoo-Hoo! If she's in your pool, DOH! Either way, there is such a disparity between regions, sexes and ratings that true parity is unobtainable. And if we're talking a local open here...(hey look, epeemike, L-O-C-A-L! Ah done spelt it right!) does it TRULY matter in the pools whether she is an "E" from a youth event or a "U"?

Originally posted by oiuyt
We should all want fair tournaments. A fair tournament includes, among other things, balanced pools. (snip) Therefore things that make the classification system less accurate are to be avoided if possible.

Correct. Correct. Slippery slope... Back to my earlier question--where do you stop, then, in search of the elusive Universal Ratings Parity? Some regions have difficulty fielding a "C" event, even if some of their fencers might do well enough in other regions to rank much higher. Are we to institute a regional handicap system? Is an "A" earned at a cadet NAC event a lesser or greater "A" than one earned at the Div1A national championships? What if the cadet "A" was a local event "A"? Is an "E" earned at the Vet's meet in Arlington this weekend by a 45 year old with bad knees who fences one or two meets a year a weaker or stronger "E" than the one earned by the 14 year old at last week's B1 tournament we had? After all, the vet was fencing in an "age restricted" event. How do you assess that level of parity when the two meet next week at the next open?

In the case of the unranked youth tournaments, I just have to go back to the level of comparative disadvantage. Could a fencer earn a ranking that might be more difficult elsewhere? Sure. Does it mean they couldn't in a local open? Not necessarily. Can a 12 year old with a youth-based ranking skew a pool? Possibly. Is it any more unbalancing than one of the hundred other inequities inherent in the way ratings are earned? Probably even less than some we could imagine.

They also previously awarded ratings at the national championships in the youth categories, if they met the numbers/ratings requirements. Should those be eliminated? While we're avoiding things that make the classification system less accurate, let's bag the pesky veteran's ratings as well. Let's ban mixed events. See how it never stops?

All because someone thinks it might be unfair for a kid to get an "E".

It's one item in a box full of potential flaws, but it's just not that strip-shattering.

[veeco]

I think that at the local level the greatest factor in creating unbalanced pools is not the fact that some people have earned ratings at age restricted events, but the fact that it should be avoided as much as possible to put 2 people from the same club in the same pool. This is what will create the most unbalancing effect in the pools, IMO.

[DHCJr]

That is a great truth. In our local tournament, even with 6 or 7 pools, we have clubs that send up to a dozen fencers and trying to keep them separate and the pools even is difficult to say the least.

[Mo]

Been thinking about how many kids ACTUALLY fence in local opens at a young age and the number is actually fairly low.

In the meets I have been to (almost 4 years worth) the younger kids that fence, the 10 and 12 year olds usually finish very well as in at least the top half. The Y14, Cadet and Junior age groups win the meets more often than not.

The kids are only in the lower age groups for a short time and will soon be forced to in the upper age groups where their E or D is basically worthless.

The kids seem to fence harder to improve faster than most adults anyway. They have the time and their parents have the money so they can devote themselves without the stress an a college student or adult has starting out. It is like being a champion in any other sport, they older you are when you start the harder it is to get yourself up to the very top. As the groups of kids age and the sport grows larger it is going to be even more difficult.

If a fencer does very well by the time they are in Y14 they are usually beginning to fence in Div 2 and Div 1 events. At the JO's many of the fencers were still Y14 and at least 1/3 of them had a B or better.

If a ten year old or 12 year old can beat all the kids in her or his age group, the odds are she or he will continue to do so. Usually it is the same one or two kids winning in local Y10 and Y12 events EVERY time anyway. It changes a little as the kids get older but generally they improve along the same rates.
Who is to say they are artificial?? Or given without them being earned?? Not me.

The path is never easy and begruding a kid an E or D from fencing in their age groups is.... tacky.

[Mo]

Although some of you think that ratings and seedings can skew a meet, getting a bad referee in a local competition is sooo much more likely.
We had one guy who was a coach and a referee and we watched him call a bout desperately trying to decide which fencer was going to win based on which fencer he disliked least. Often it was hard for him to decide.
When the division finally got some referees that knew their asses from shortstop it was even more fun to watch him fume because his students quit winning.
There are so many factors in fencing, ratings and actual ability are often bowled over by politics or a referee that does not understand rules.
There is BS everywhere.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Chris
Which numbers are you talking about?

I'm talking about the reference to the percentage of fencers who are rated. its not that I dispute your numbers, just not aware of where they are available.