Pan-American Games results

[veeco]

Yes, but the thing is, most of those Portuguese, Estonians, Swedish, and Koreans that are above the US fencers in foil or not competing are ranked below the US fencers in epee...

So the percentile argument still holds some value.

As far as giving medals to a lower place, I'll just assume that you weren't really serious about this. Most fencing events give medals and/or prizes to the top 8 fencers regardless of the size of the field. The medals are not given to represent the merit of placing in a certain percentile, but to represent the merit of being on of the top X fencers that day. Quite a different thing.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by veeco
Yes, but the thing is, most of those Portuguese, Estonians, Swedish, and Koreans that are above the US fencers in foil or not competing are ranked below the US fencers in epee...

this is a complete red herring. the argument was that due to a larger field, placing lower in epee is the same as placing higher in foil. My argument is that this is not true because the added nations are largely chaffe, that is low ranking people added onto the end who don't REALLY affect the US placements. The fact that those who aren't competing in foil are below the US in epee is EXACTLY why the percentile argument is meaningless.

So the percentile argument still holds some value.

not so. see above.

As far as giving medals to a lower place, I'll just assume that you weren't really serious about this. Most fencing events give medals and/or prizes to the top 8 fencers regardless of the size of the field. The medals are not given to represent the merit of placing in a certain percentile, but to represent the merit of being on of the top X fencers that day. Quite a different thing.

EXACTLY!!! the way we measure success is absolute placement, not percentile. thus, our foil programs are doing better than our epee programs. by what measure? absolute placement, which is, as you pointed out, the measure which is used.

-m

[veeco]

EXACTLY!!! the way we measure success is absolute placement, not percentile. thus, our foil programs are doing better than our epee programs. by what measure? absolute placement, which is, as you pointed out, the measure which is used.

-m [/B]

The way you measure success in an event, sure. The way you measure the relative strength of a program against another, not so. You said that men's epee in general was weaker than men's foil, not that men's epee was less successful than men's foil.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by epeemike81
this is a complete red herring. the argument was that due to a larger field, placing lower in epee is the same as placing higher in foil. My argument is that this is not true because the added nations are largely chaffe, that is low ranking people added onto the end who don't REALLY affect the US placements. The fact that those who aren't competing in foil are below the US in epee is EXACTLY why the percentile argument is meaningless.

Whoa!! the argument is NOT about larger field size -- you had said that even though the foil and epee fencer EACH have 52 points, the foil fencer is better because his weapon ranking was higher and that the fact that they each have 52 points was meaningless. I just was demonstrating that with 52 points, both the foil fencer and epee fencer are in the same percentile -- they are equivalent -- it is the ranking that is relative to the field, and you shouldn't place weight on that to compare programs -- in a comparison, you can't compare apples with oranges; you have to find a similar basis in which to find a meaningful comparison. I have offered you 2 bases for comparison: FIE points or percentile.

The facts that many nations have strong epee programs, and that many nations don't even field foilists for competitions is chaffe??? Just taking a look at the top 16 in epee, it includes a Swede, a Netherlander, a Norwegian and a Belarousian -- they are all chaffe?? At least 2, if not all 4 of these guys will be going to the Olympics -- I don't consider that chaffe.

Going to your medal argument of actual results is only what really matters, both the epee and foil fencers got 52 points each -- whether you receive medals or points, that is the way to measure actual results -- you said it your self -- look at the actual results -- they both have 52 points, they are both in the same percentile, they are equivalent.

To give another example to your position on ranking as being the most important criteria , is the doctor who graduated 5th in his class from a Phillipino medical school better than the doctor who graduated 35th in his class from Harvard?? He has the higher ranking.....

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by veeco
The way you measure success in an event, sure. The way you measure the relative strength of a program against another, not so. You said that men's epee in general was weaker than men's foil, not that men's epee was less successful than men's foil.

Let me clarify. yes, to me weaker means consistently less successful. There is no other way to measure weakness across bounds. I would say, for example, that our soccer program is weaker than ouir baseball program. there are fewer baseball programs, so it is easier to place highly in the world. that doesn't diminish the fact that they CONSISTENTLY perform better.

Why is this such a big deal?? both programs have come a long way, but the foil program is better right now! they both have positive trends (though the second derivative is lower for epee....).

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by nahouw
Whoa!! the argument is NOT about larger field size -- you had said that even though the foil and epee fencer EACH have 52 points, the foil fencer is better because his weapon ranking was higher and that the fact that they each have 52 points was meaningless. I just was demonstrating that with 52 points, both the foil fencer and epee fencer are in the same percentile -- they are equivalent -- it is the ranking that is relative to the field, and you shouldn't place weight on that to compare programs -- in a comparison, you can't compare apples with oranges; you have to find a similar basis in which to find a meaningful comparison. I have offered you 2 bases for comparison: FIE points or percentile.

do you really not see that the percentile argument IS about field size??? the reason that the epeeist has the same percentile with a lower absolute place is due to larger field size! much of this added size is low level chaffe at the bottom of the list. thus, it makes the percentile look better without ACTUALLY affecting anything. as for the two bases for comparisons, you have missed the most meaningful one: results! The Men's Foil program CONSISTENTLY produces better results than Men's Epee. that is the bottom line. Trying to judge on FIE points is trying to judge team batting on Batting Average in baseball: It doesn't matter if team A has a better BA, Team B's offense is better if they score more runs. after all, the POINT is to score more runs, not to have a higher BA. BA is a means to an end. the way to measure team batting is runs scored. likewise, it doesn't matter if they have the same number of points. the point is world ranking. points are but an means to an end.

The facts that many nations have strong epee programs, and that many nations don't even field foilists for competitions is chaffe??? Just taking a look at the top 16 in epee, it includes a Swede, a Netherlander, a Norwegian and a Belarousian -- they are all chaffe?? At least 2, if not all 4 of these guys will be going to the Olympics -- I don't consider that chaffe.

You cited the exception as the rule. Yes Scandanavian countries (as I said) field good epee and not much else. however, there are also many other, non-powerhouses that field only epee, and do poorly in that.

Going to your medal argument of actual results is only what really matters, both the epee and foil fencers got 52 points each -- whether you receive medals or points, that is the way to measure actual results -- you said it your self -- look at the actual results -- they both have 52 points, they are both in the same percentile, they are equivalent.

see above argument. You need to measure the end, not the means.

To give another example to your position on ranking as being the most important criteria , is the doctor who graduated 5th in his class from a Phillipino medical school better than the doctor who graduated 35th in his class from Harvard?? He has the higher ranking.....

wrong. for you see, the world is the same stage as... the world. This is actually more like me saying the Lawyer who graduated 5th in his class from Harvard is better than the Doctor who graduated 35th in his class from Harvard. it is the SAME institution: the world.

-m

[a517dogg]

epeemike81, if your argument was carried to its logical extreme, placing 3 out of 3 would be a better result than placing 5 out of 100.

Also, many of the recent entries into the Men's Epee field are not chaffe. For instance, both Korea and China have won men's epee world championship medals. Chile, Venezuela and Australia have a couple very strong fencers that have developed in recent years. With the breakup of the USSR, the former Soviet Union now instead of sending three or four fencers to a world cup, can send as many as thirty. Included in the former SSRs are Estonia, Belarus and the Ukraine, all of which have exceptional men's epee programs, and Kazakhstan, which has a pretty good program.

[jescrime]

••••message corrupted••••

[jescrime]

TO MHS Fencer,

I'm surprised you would state that Johathan Pena rating is inflated, I copied out a couple of results comparing Seth and Jonathan results in events in which they both competed. They speak for themselves. Nothing against Seth, but please give credit where credit is due.

1999 PAN AMERICAN GAMES
Men Epee Medalist
1) Carlos Pedroso Curiel, Cuba
2) Jonathan Pena Gonzalez, Puerto Rico
3) Laurie Shong, Canada
3) Arturo Simont Zeron, Mexico

ME Classement de CAROLINA Puerto Rico 2003
17) PUR PENA Jonathan
19) USA KELSEY Weston Seth

Nov 2002 - ME World Cup in Bern, Switzerland
9) PUR PENA Jonathan
25) USA KELSEY Weston Seth

jescrime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MHS Fencer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2000
Location:
Posts: 152

I'd like to see the full results for the Men's epee competition before commenting too extensively, but I have to say i'm actually surprised we didn't end up doing better. Seth Kelsey had been fencing very well recently, and I'm surprised that he'd lose to Pena, and, although Pena is a solid fencer, I think his world ranking is inflated. It'll be interesting to see whether we'll end up qualifying a team, considering our comparatively poor showing in the individual Pan Ams.

[MHS Fencer]

I was just commenting from watching him fence - he didn't seem to have it when I saw him, but I suppose i could have seen him on a more off day. I guess i shouldn't have been surprised, but in those results you're pointing out Pena only made it one round further in Berne, and both were seeded according to their world ranking in Carolina, and they both went out in the same round, so that means nothing. Also, Seth has a lot of talent that's not yet, and has also finished ahead of Pena in Cuba, but that was his rather exceptional finish. Pena's best finishes came in Bogota, which looks to have been rather sparsely attended, and Tunis, which, from looking at the results, didn't seem as strong as usual for a Euro GP. Either way, that's one strong finish for each (not counting Bogota) and then more peripheral finishes - I suppose that in the end it's fair to say they're probably about equal, but Pena's ranking still seems inflated to me, although that often happens.

[Sabresque]

I know this question has probably already been asked, but is there any place that I can or will be able to find the full results? I know one site that will give me the top three in every competition, and obviously we all know how the americans did, but I have a friend from a different country who competed, and I would like do know how he did. Thanks a lot!