Ranking

[Kestrell]

Hello,
I am fairly new to fencing, and I was wondering about the A,B,C... rankings. Can someone tell me how you get ranked, how you move up in ranks etc, or show me where to go to find this info?
Thanks!

[DHCJr]

All the information you are asking about can be found on the USFA website www.USFencing.org and look under 'Info for Members' and then forms. You will find the Athlete handbook. On page C-5 in the apendix will be a chart showing the requirements for ratings. You get ratings (A-highest to E-lowest) based on the size and strength of the competition, as well as how you did. There will be a 2 digit number following the letter, designating what year you earned it. If you do not reearn your rating after a few years, your rating goes down.

That should get you started.

[Kestrell]

Thats great, thanks for the link. What kind of numbers are we looking at for the higher ratings? Are there a lot of C's, B's, and A's out there?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

When we were new to the sport, we asked a similar question of the USFA: where is the list of fencers and their current ratings?

Imagine our surprise when we were told no such database is available for public consumption.

It's a pity...it would be a great way to keep track of your fencing buddies around the country and how they were doing.

[edew]

I don't know how hard that could be. I mean, USFA already has a database of all our names, addresses, etc. They also have the foil/sabre/epee classification of each fencer.

If the database is nothing more than a flat file of plain text, just write a perl script to go through all the entries, counting the F-A's E-A's S-A's and F-B's E-B's, S-B's, and so on.

I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to write a script to do that.

[135711]

i know as soon as i type this, it'll be vetoed and the rocket scientist on the board will create a new encrypted data base for the usfa; but my only guess about the rankings on a giant database is to prevent outsiders from hacking into the system and rigging the ratings.

remember the universities that had people going into their systems and making their grades look better? [i worked at univ. alongside the it's and their whole existence was to firewall the databases]

[sorry, coffee hasn't kicked in yet]

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by 135711
i know as soon as i type this, it'll be vetoed and the rocket scientist on the board will create a new encrypted data base for the usfa; but my only guess about the rankings on a giant database is to prevent outsiders from hacking into the system and rigging the ratings.

remember the universities that had people going into their systems and making their grades look better? [i worked at univ. alongside the it's and their whole existence was to firewall the databases]

[sorry, coffee hasn't kicked in yet]

you publish a COPY of the information. thus, people could change the copy, but the original would still be correct.

-m

[shamshir]

We already have something like this in Canada.

http://www.fencing.ca/rankings/2002-03_m_class.htm

The USFA should probably take a hint. It's easy to do, it's just a damn list after all.

[135711]

aren't ratings printed on your card? i haven't looked at my card, let me go look......oh there it is!

[shamshir]

Well, unless you steal everyone's cards you can't keep track of how everyone else is doing, which was one of the benefits mentioned by a previous poster in this thread.

[135711]

ah ha! shame-on-you-shir! no really, why would you want to keep track of everyone's rankings. in fact the other night i was talking about this subject with my instructor; we went 'yadda yadda" and concluded, that it really doesn't make much sence to follow others ratings in competition, only some people need to or should or can handle working out their strategy by knowing another persons ratings. i do okay with it, but how's it an edge?

[shamshir]

has nothing to do with competition or strategy, but isn't it true that almost all fencers are also fencing fans? I.e. competitors are also spectators. It's fun to see if any of your friends or acquaintances or irritating enemies have gained new ratings each year.

That said it isn't vital info, I just thought it couldn't hurt to provide it. Of course I don't care, because my federation does it already.

[graphixaddict]

the best system i have found is the USCF system (united states chess federation) take a look here http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/
for the most part i think its automated, and on the hacker note...just keep it independent of the true ranking files, keep it on another server. for the most part a computer that holds the rankings of every fencer in the world should not be connected to the internet anyyways its just to risky... it would be very easy however to just backup the files to a tape drive each night..the ones from the independent computer and update the files on the internet accesible machine.
Graphix

[Gav]

I know people who have dealt with the ches system and it's always struck me as being a bit ... over complex. Here in the UK we have a rolling ranking list where the points you receive are based upon your final position in a tournament. If you compete and get points you are on the list - simple. The database is maintained by volunteers who do a very good job. It is the responsibility of the tournament organiser to submit the results of a tournament so that the fencers gain their points. Tournaments have been dropped in the past from the schedule for getting results wrong or for taking too long to send the results the database administrators. It works well. I'm surprised that there isn't something similair in the States. I was also disapointed. We used to have an american fencer attend our club and none of us have been able to follow his progress since he went home.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally posted by Gav
I know people who have dealt with the ches system and it's always struck me as being a bit ... over complex. Here in the UK we have a rolling ranking list where the points you receive are based upon your final position in a tournament. If you compete and get points you are on the list - simple. The database is maintained by volunteers who do a very good job. It is the responsibility of the tournament organiser to submit the results of a tournament so that the fencers gain their points. Tournaments have been dropped in the past from the schedule for getting results wrong or for taking too long to send the results the database administrators. It works well. I'm surprised that there isn't something similair in the States. I was also disapointed. We used to have an american fencer attend our club and none of us have been able to follow his progress since he went home.

I think a USFA posted chart would be great. One thing about the US adopting a system similar to the UK or even the Canadian one is simply Logistics. The population in California alone is more than half the population of England. And a lot more at that. And we have 49 other states to deal with.

I agree that people place way two much emphasis on the letter rankings, but that is the fault of the people and not the system. It really does not indicate all that much as to how good a fencer you are on a national level. I know E's and even Unrateds that can beat C's and B's from other states.

The current rankings system seems to be only indicative of where you stand in you own state among the active competitive fencers in any given year, and secondarily somewhat useful for seeding in a handful of National events. Oh wait, that is exactly how it is supposed to work isn't it? Never mind. I like the current system just fine.

[Gav]

As I understand it, you guys have different organisations that deal with each state. Why couldn't each state deal with it's own ranking list? If you want an American-wide list you would have to establish a system of comparing the rankings across the US. How often do people meet to compete inter-state? You would, of course end up with a league system where fencers would be ranked in their own division then those who were able to compete inter-state would then be entered onto the national [Premier?] League. It's a multi tirered system but I don't see an easy way away from that . The US is the size of a continent.

Database Administration is fairly easy it's just the will to implement a scheme that seems to be holding you back.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Gav
I know people who have dealt with the ches system and it's always struck me as being a bit ... over complex. Here in the UK we have a rolling ranking list where the points you receive are based upon your final position in a tournament. If you compete and get points you are on the list - simple. The database is maintained by volunteers who do a very good job. It is the responsibility of the tournament organiser to submit the results of a tournament so that the fencers gain their points. Tournaments have been dropped in the past from the schedule for getting results wrong or for taking too long to send the results the database administrators. It works well. I'm surprised that there isn't something similair in the States. I was also disapointed. We used to have an american fencer attend our club and none of us have been able to follow his progress since he went home.

USFA has a rolling points standing. the problem is, unlike britain, not all tournaments are national. the choices are to have a more general ranking system for the smaller events (which is what we have), or don't bother rating from the smaller tourneys.

trying to do rolling points for ALL tournaments in the USFA is really not practical.

-m

[Gav]

Sorry epeemike I think you misunderstand what I am proposing to you. You carve the US up by State and and have individual rolling rankings for that state. So far like the UK. The problem comes from relating inta-state rankings with inter-state ones. You could use a system where those at the top of the the local state league qualify for the inter-state tournaments. Those that make it onto the inter-state circuit would then be acruiing inter-state points.

So to me it doesn't sound too difficult. You will need to implement a multi-tiered system but then you have the advantage of local goals for local fencers. National Goals for National fencers. Those at the top will have to work hard to stay there - they have to maintain the intra-state ranking and inter-state - but how you go about this is upto you guys in the US. The idea I've outlined gives the US it's own miniFIE-stlye circuit. It doesn't have to be complex to run or administer either.

It's only an idea mind.

[edew]

Check out the Bay Cup's ranking list:

www.thebaycup.org/jr_standings.html or
www.thebaycup.org/sr_standings.html or
www.thebaycup.org/ve_standings.html

The most general one would be the senior standings (.../sr_standings.html).

We give points equivalent to what the USFA does for NACs: 1000 points for first place, 920 for second, etc. We, however, give points to all fencers who compete. So if you finish 53rd, you still get points. Our algorithm is, for places 33rd to 48, you get 130 - 5(place - 32). And for places 49 to 200, 25 points. We don't anticipate having more than 200 entrants to any one event.

Despite already having a point standing, which could nominally be used to seed most tournaments, we still use the USFA letter classification system.

Why? Because the points system suffers from not having any points for those who come in the first time. So if Jed Dupree wants to fence in a local Bay Cup tournament, he has zero Bay Cup points and thus might be seeded last, which would be patently absurd.

Second, it benefits those who attend a lot of events. As one can see from the rankings, the ones who are on top are those who attend the bulk of the events, not the ones who win consistently, but otherwise seldom attend events.

The USFA classification system is good in that if you win once and get a high rating, that is probably a better indicator than one who has earned the most points over the couse of a season.

We have no intention of implementing anything like the chess ranking system. My understading is that it's a zero-sum system wherein one person gains at the expense of another's loss. It may not be linearly zero-sum (numerical increase equals numerical decreaase), but it does drop the top people's ranking.

The problem with that is that it will discourage the top people from attending, which is not exactly what we want to have.

Also, I personally think that a ranking system, other than to properly seed the event at the initial stages, is completely useless other than some cosmetic benefit for those who are ranked high, and perhaps an aspiration for those who are ranked low.

I rather have that medal hanging on my neck as validation of my skills rather than having a high rank.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Gav
Sorry epeemike I think you misunderstand what I am proposing to you. You carve the US up by State and and have individual rolling rankings for that state. So far like the UK. The problem comes from relating inta-state rankings with inter-state ones. You could use a system where those at the top of the the local state league qualify for the inter-state tournaments. Those that make it onto the inter-state circuit would then be acruiing inter-state points.

So to me it doesn't sound too difficult. You will need to implement a multi-tiered system but then you have the advantage of local goals for local fencers. National Goals for National fencers. Those at the top will have to work hard to stay there - they have to maintain the intra-state ranking and inter-state - but how you go about this is upto you guys in the US. The idea I've outlined gives the US it's own miniFIE-stlye circuit. It doesn't have to be complex to run or administer either.

It's only an idea mind.

No, I understood. I still maintain that it would be too difficult to work out. the problem is the disparity between the regions, which is VAST. if you only took the top x fencers from each region, then you would have a large number of fencers from places like NYC who wouldn't be able to make it to nationals, but would be leaps and bounds above the top fencers from other regions.

It is an intriguing idea, but not one which is very practical to implement in this country.

-m