Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

scarlet_woman156k · 05-07-2003, 06:41 PM

I thought that only the DE table earned points, and thus far during this season that has been true...however the USFA just "changed" the rules and gave the top 32 senior points all across the board...(they actually went in and changed the results for the past Div I events this season). Huh?

Does anyone know why?

Also, does anyone know the format and/or actual point system this season for Div I Nationals?

afc fencer · 05-07-2003, 09:14 PM

Woah thats not really fair for them to go and do that when they had posted something saying you must make it out of pools to get points. The diffrence between 33 and 32 was probally only a few touches. The usfa should explain why they did this.

edew · 05-07-2003, 09:55 PM

In most cases, the difference between 32nd and 33rd is a victory or loss, in the DE rounds. Only in the small events like women's foil or women's sabre did the two rounds of pools end up with fewer than 64 fencers coming out of the second round of pools. In that case, you still need to win a DE bout to get into the round of 32. That's a significant difference. Enough to justify giving points to the 32nd place fencer and none to the 33rd place fencer.

However, they may not have gone into repechage until the round of 16, though. But that's not an issue with regards to awarding points.

afc fencer · 05-07-2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

In most cases, the difference between 32nd and 33rd is a victory or loss, in the DE rounds. Only in the small events like women's foil or women's sabre did the two rounds of pools end up with fewer than 64 fencers coming out of the second round of pools. In that case, you still need to win a DE bout to get into the round of 32.

The thing is in WS we only started out with 57 people so 35 people made it to second round and 21 to DEs. So its not fair to give 22-32 points

epeemike81 · 05-07-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edew
In most cases, the difference between 32nd and 33rd is a victory or loss, in the DE rounds. Only in the small events like women's foil or women's sabre did the two rounds of pools end up with fewer than 64 fencers coming out of the second round of pools. In that case, you still need to win a DE bout to get into the round of 32. That's a significant difference. Enough to justify giving points to the 32nd place fencer and none to the 33rd place fencer.

However, they may not have gone into repechage until the round of 16, though. But that's not an issue with regards to awarding points.

At the last nac, in MS, oiuyt got 33rd by one indicator.

to have the top thirty two ALL make it out of pools, you need to have at least 89 competitors. at the last div I nac, that was only true in MF and ME. thus, this ruling probably creates cases similar to oiuyt's in 4 of the six weapons. that seems pretty significant to me.

a DE is CERTAINLY a significant enough difference. however, that WASN'T the difference between 4 of the 6 sets of 32 and 33.

-m

nahouw · 05-08-2003, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scarlet_woman156k
I thought that only the DE table earned points, and thus far during this season that has been true...however the USFA just "changed" the rules and gave the top 32 senior points all across the board...(they actually went in and changed the results for the past Div I events this season). Huh?

Does anyone know why?

Also, does anyone know the format and/or actual point system this season for Div I Nationals?

You are incorrect to think that only the DE tableau earns points -- That has only been coincidental at the other NACs.

If you read the athlete's handbook, you would know the actual rule is that the top 40% down to 32 of the field earns points, and if you are in the bracket in which the top 40% occurs, you also earn points.

The format is with repechage, so the brackets in question end at 24 and 32.

Under this formula, for the last NAC, all events except for Women's Sabre should have been awarded points to 32 -- and women's sabre should have been awarded points only to 24.

Any questions about the format for the Division I Nationals and the points allocated can be found in the Athlete's handbook, which is on the USFA website.

afc fencer · 05-08-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

You are incorrect to think that only the DE tableau earns points -- That has only been coincidental at the other NACs.

If you read the athlete's handbook, you would know the actual rule is that the top 40% down to 32 of the field earns points, and if you are in the bracket in which the top 40% occurs, you also earn points.

The format is with repechage, so the brackets in question end at 24 and 32.

Under this formula, for the last NAC, all events except for Women's Sabre should have been awarded points to 32 -- and women's sabre should have been awarded points only to 24.

Any questions about the format for the Division I Nationals and the points allocated can be found in the Athlete's handbook, which is on the USFA website..

No you are wrong. In the winter 2002 issuse of the news letter they said "If it is an incomplet tableau, then only those who actually made the direct elimination round will earn points."

scarlet_woman156k · 05-08-2003, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by afc fencer
No you are wrong. In the winter 2002 issuse of the news letter they said "If it is an incomplet tableau, then only those who actually made the direct elimination round will earn points."

Exactly...thank you, afc. I'm not blindly making assumptions here.

For example, when women's epee at overland park had the original seating prior to the first round of pools it was stated 26 would make it to the DE table (there were 71 fencers I believe) and those would be the ones who earned points.

The original results posted stated 26 earned points correctly, and that was on around May 1...then when I was looking around yesterday on the USFA site they altered the results and the point standings to include 27-32 as earning points. I looked back at past results from all the women's div I results (foil/sabre/epee) this season and all had been changed as well to include 32 total. I swear to god.

It's just weird and I'm wondering why.

oiuyt · 05-08-2003, 01:30 PM

The newsletter does not take precidence over the Athlete's Handbook. As mentioned by nahouw, find the 40% level of the tournament. Find the round that that person is eliminated in. That entire round gets points. Now cap points at 32 if you're beyond that point.

Given that in the current format ~36% of the tournament will make DEs, the round that includes the 40% threshold is the final round of pools. Therefore if 32 or more make DEs then you need to make both DEs and the round of 32. If there are 87 or more people (it's not exactly 89 as mentioned by epeemike because of the first to second round cut going to equal pools) you will need to make DEs. If there are fewer than 87 fencers you just need to make the top 32. If the event has 53 or fewer people then likely only 30 people make the second round of pools. At this point fewer than 32 people will get points (40% of 53 is 21.2, which puts it in the round of 19-30). Once you get to 55 people the second round will probably have 35 fencers which means the top 32 get points. 54 entries can probably go to either a round of 30 or a round of 35. In the first case points would go to 30, in the second to 32.

And as mentioned by epeemike, it does NOT come down to victories. MS in KS there was a tie on victories from 22-35 (we were all 2-4 in the second round). I finished 33rd, 1 indicator from points. It happens, and it means every touch counts.

Scarlet_woman: WHERE was it stated that 26 would earn points? They post the number of people making it to each round and the types of pools, but the form they post on the wall does NOT mention points levels. During the MS competition I queried the bout committee (George K. specificly) about how far points would go and he cited the 40% level and therefore to 32 (which I knew, but I was trying to confirm).

Personally I'm glad they are willing to go back and correct the errors that they made previously when they didn't award such points. Granted it doesn't help me personally, I finished 33rd, it's still the right thing to do.

Nahouw: Your round breaks are wrong. The breaks are the number that make it out of the first round of pools, the number that make it into DEs, then the DE round breaks. If there is an incomplete round of 32 then there is no round of 24.

-B :)

scarlet_woman156k · 05-08-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oiuyt
The newsletter does not take precidence over the Athlete's Handbook
-B

Well, I'm definitely finding out now that THAT is the truth.

The contradiction irritates me, however.

afc fencer · 05-08-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

The newsletter does not take precidence over the Athlete's Handbook

Where in the handbook does it say this. I have only found things saying the oppisite. From the preface, "Periodically, there will be
changes and/or updates to the information in this book. These will be published in the
quarterly USFA National Newsletter."

Sabresque · 05-09-2003, 01:56 AM

?? In the information they sent out before the tournament, it's 40% who get points, then they go for the amoun tof fencers in certain brackets they state. therefore, according to what they sent out in the tournament information, 24 fencers should have gotten points. I have no idea why they put it to 32.

What newsletter was that change in? I didn't see it.

Sabresque · 05-09-2003, 01:59 AM

Woops, I lied... I scrolled up and looked more carefully. You don't need to answer my question.

oiuyt · 05-09-2003, 10:56 AM

Mmmmm. K, I'll accept that I'm wrong there. I can't find my copy of the newsletter so I can't see what they say. Do they specify it as a change in the article? As Sabresque points out the confirmation packet gives out the same information that is in the AH.

Sabresque: which question do you no longer want answered? The newsletter in question is winter 2002, the reason for the round breaks is detailed in my previous post.

-B :)

Sabresque · 05-09-2003, 03:58 PM

Woops, I meant questions. All of them

Sometimes I don't read really carefully, and it gets me more confused than I need to be.

afc fencer · 05-09-2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Mmmmm. K, I'll accept that I'm wrong there. I can't find my copy of the newsletter so I can't see what they say. Do they specify it as a change in the article? As Sabresque points out the confirmation packet gives out the same information that is in the AH.

Here is the whole article

Clarifiction of award of points in the NAC divison I
Maxium place for award of points =32, but only to the tableau of 32. Points will be awarded for those in the direct elimination tableau of 32. If there are 42 actual competitors, then points will be awared to places 1-16: if there are between 43-and 63, points will be awarded to places 1-24; f there are more than 63 in the feild then points are awarded to those making tableau of 32. If it is an incomplete tableau then only those who actually made the direct elimination round will earn points.

Now they did not call it an update or change however I understand the usage of clarification to mean that this was implied, but not understood by all.
I rember in one of the packets I got I think it said the part of having to make des because i thought this before the newsletter came out.