Six 40-year-olds and One Gets an "E"!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I see in the latest USFA newsletter that the BoD did indeed strip classification awards from youth events at the local, divisional and sectional level. Fringe fencing media watchdogs are already starting to pick up on the changes:


Article from the Summer '03 edition of "Junior Fencing Quarterly:"

Youth Fencers Dissed During USFA Deliberations
by G. Glamdring, Quarterstaff Writer

Ratings opportunities for young fencers under 16 years of age received a vicious stop-cut this summer at the United States Fencing Association's (USFA) Board of Director's Meeting in Austin, Texas. The Board voted to rescind awarding ratings to Y-10, Y-12, Y-14 and Cadet compeititors during meets at the sectional, divisional or local level, unless the competitions meet the lofty "A", "B" or "C" requirements.
"It was a joke!" fumed one adult fencer, reached on the East Coast by phone from the JFQ offices. "You had six 10 year olds competing, and one of them would get an "E"! These inflated ratings were flooding the US fencing arena, and totally ruining the pool seedings." When asked why other age or ratings restricted events were not put under the same scrutiny and eliminated, the fencer remained silent for a long moment, and said, "Wait a minute. Are you recording this?" Our phone connection was lost, and subsequent calls were not returned.
Youth fencers were not at all pleased. Jennifer Smartalekk, a 10-year old foil fencer from Walla Walla, Washington was, like, totally outraged. "We've got all these old guys that just came out of our beginning foil class. They're so ancient, like what, 40? Half of them can't even fence a 15 point bout without getting all sweaty and wheezing like my chain-smoking Granma down at the nursing home. Next week, we're gonna have an unranked men's foil competition, and one of them's gonna get an "E"! Omigod! They've only been fencing for, like, 6 weeks! And besides, after practice, their fencing jackets smell like a cat barfed in them or something."
6 year old epeeist Joshua N. Khelbighter of Moulinet, Maryland, was more analytical. "It reeks of blatant age discrimination," Khelbighter proclaimed. "Clearly, the organizational hierarchy controlling USFA competitions values the emotional fragility of older participants over the legitimate physiological/psychological development protocols of the burgeoning ranks of aspiring, but not yet out of puberty fencing afficianados. This paradigm shift only perpetuates--"
At this point the phone appeared to have been wrestled away from Mr. Khelbighter, and an unidentified voice (believed to be that of his mother) can be heard saying: "I don't CARE who you're talking to...fencing, schmencing! Your on-line tutor from MIT is waiting on your computer with some questions about your doctoral thesis!" The phone connection was lost, and subsequent calls were not returned.
Anxious to learn more, our staff contacted the PR department of the USFA.
The text of our interview follows:

JFQ: Tell me about the new rules for awarding ratings at USFA meets.
USFA: Wait a second, I'll look them up for you. (long silence follows) Uh, our website seems to be down...let me get a hard copy for you. (Long silence follows) Here it is...no, wait, that's the 1999 copy of the rule book. When did you say the changes happened?
JFQ: The board meeting at the 2003 Summer Nationals.
USFA: Oh, THOSE rating changes. (sound of paper shuffling) Well, we had received a lot of input from our membership, clearly indicating there was a major problem with the way ratings were awarded. Specifically, that youth fencers were being awarded ratings that adults had a harder time achieving.
JFQ: Who was complaining, the kids or the adults? And which segment of the fencing population is growing the fastest: youth fencers or adult fencers?
USFA: That information isn't in front of me, I'll have to check for you.
JFQ: What did the USFA decide was the problem?
USFA: It skewed the pool seedings. We thought that it was unfair to have age-restricted events give out ratings only to youth fencers, when older fencers were barred from competing.
JFQ: At the NAC level, would a 10 year old with an "E" be allowed to fence at the Div 1, 2 or 3 level against adults?
USFA: Uh, no.
JFQ: Who would they fence with?
USFA: Other Y10 and Y12 fencers, maybe Y14s, if they have national points.
JFQ: Who also would have fenced in local meets and received ratings?
USFA: Yes.
JFQ. So the pool skewing would happen...when?
USFA: (long silence, sound of papers shuffling) Oh! during LOCAL meets!
JFQ: So the idea was that a youth fencer's "E" was tainted, whereas an "E" earned by by an adult in an "unranked only" tournament was more valid?
USFA: Yes!
JFQ: even if both groups--the ten year olds and the adults had each just graduated from their novice fencing classes?
USFA: Uh.....
JFQ: And how, in principle, is an age restricted youth event different from an age-restricted veteran's event?
USFA: Well....(long silence)
JFQ: So a tournament limited to 40+ year old fencers who have just graduated from a novice class produces a more equitable "E" fencer than a tournament of 15 year olds with several years of experience?
USFA: (Long silence) Who did you say you were calling from?
JFQ: Junior Fencing Quarterly...
USFA: hold please.
At this point, the phone connection was lost, and subsequent phone calls were not returned.
So here's the final impact on youth fencers. If you want a rating in an age-restricted event, you must fence at a NAC to get one. The adult who just graduated with you from the beginner's class gets to stay home and fence.
Next issue: "Getting Gloved!" Which glove smells worse when clamped on your face after months of hard practice: leather or synthetic? The olfactory results of our reader's poll.


I for one was glad to hear that the USFA took bold, decisive action. This should lessen the flood of pint sized fencers armed with unearned classifications that was threatening the entire fabric of modern fencing.

No matter what that Glamdring guy was thinking.

[Wizardly]

There's a lot of fast and loose with fairness in that exerpt.

JFQ: So the idea was that a youth fencer's "E" was tainted, whereas an "E" earned by by an adult in an "unranked only" tournament was more valid?
USFA: Yes!
JFQ: even if both groups--the ten year olds and the adults had each just graduated from their novice fencing classes?

I don't mind the comparison to age restricted youth tournaments to age restricted veterans tournaments. But you can't make the comparison to classification-restricted tournaments. Of course an E earned by an adult [and any other age group in attendance] at a U-tourney is more valid - it's a competition restricted by skill level, not age.

JFQ. So the pool skewing would happen...when?
USFA: (long silence, sound of papers shuffling) Oh! during LOCAL meets!

If JFQ wants to award classifications to youth fencers, just make sure they mean nothing in the universal sense. Everybody with at least one hemisphere in their head understands that a youth-only E isn't the same as a universal E. Go and earn your "youth E" at a y14 tourney for all I care. But here's a better idea - don't bother with the youth classifications. Instead, classify people roughly by skill, like they do now (now that the USFA rescinded this nonsense).

It's nice to see the USFA solving a problem rather than debating philosophy (what IS an attack? Can anybody ever really be attacking?).

[hawaii kid]

Slo-Mo,
I see a career at www.theonion.com for you dude!

very entertaining.

[Inquartata]

That was hilarious!

[nahouw]

Very entertaining, but with some kernels of truth, and people's opinions we are actually hearing.

Prior to the rule, it was a shame in NJ when we would have many A and B rated competitions -- except we couldn't give out classifications due to the age restriction (note: all the A and B fencers earned their ratings in National competitions, many of them with adults in the Open competitions, and in an effort to support local grass root development, would fence locally). WIth the new rule, it became apparent that the large propogation of E and D ratings were causing rating skewing. The modification of the rule to only A,B, and C rated tournaments in age restricted tournaments is the appropriate balance of its intention. Under this scenario, D and E ratings are earned based on their placement in relation to the higher rated fencers -- the competition had an actual strength component to it; not just given out just because 6 or 15 fencers were in attendance.

However, many of these Y-10, 12, 14 parents are getting outraged, without thinking of the bigger picture (they are too new to understand), as well as their own child's best interest. Just because Johnny wants something, you don't have to hand it to him on a silver platter -- he should earn it.

Bigger picture: with these inflated ratings, theoretically, according to seeding rules, an inflated D youth and an inflated E youth can be in the same pool in an Open local competition -- under the seeding rules, I can't move them out of that pool. The other fencers in that pool are happy, because they each get 5-0 victories over both of them. The vast majority of other fencers in the competetion are outraged, because they had to fight in a much stronger real pool, and the DE seeding is now so badly skewed -- each other fencer in that pool is 2 victories and +10 indicator richer.

Child's best interest: Although it is nice that a child earns a rating within his own age group, he feels good about himself, he feels accomplished. Now he has this rating, and it is with him in every tournament for the next 4 years. He decides he did so well that it is time for a national event. As a good parent, to help Johnny's dreams, you lay out the money for the family to travel to a National competition. What he finds out at the National competition is culture shock: he lost his bouts 5-0 to the higher classified fencers, and lost his 3 bouts with Unclassified fencers 5-0. Johnny is devastated and wants to quit fencing. Johnny has only been fencing 6 months -- he doesn't understand how long it takes to develop skills, and that when you are a big fish in a very, very small pond, when you move into a bigger pond, you are now just another small fish -- maybe even the smallest fish, since this is your first National event. The parents are now out the money for all the equipment purchased, and you know what the really sad part is? If Johnny was properly nurtured, competed appropriately, wasn't pushed so far above his level, he would have become an excellent fencer in several years time. But now, he is just a kid, who was devasted and now fears competition of any kind. Or, maybe, he doesn't quit immediately, but keeps trying in several more competitions -- how many more competitions with the same result until he finally quits? What is this impact on his self esteem?

We actually even once had a parent come up to us and tell us he wants to get his daughter a D -- we were shocked, and told him she has to earn it -- you can't buy a D -- not even on Wheel of Fortune <g>

[westcoastsabre]

But you can buy an A!

Anyways...this new rule... by cadet are they referring to cadet as u 16, as at the national championships, or as U17 as it is at NACs and JOs.

And to throw myself into the mainstream discussion... I am a cadet fencer, Spent 2 seasons as youth, and I hated that at my local RYC Y-10 event a bunch of 10 yr olds all of which I can or have beaten got E's. This rule is perfect. It rewards fencers who earn ratings rightfully in opens and at the same time it makes sure that those fencers who beat rated fencers are rewarded. Moreover, I think that Veterans should not have this rule applied to them because most have A) been fencing for a long time. and B)are finished with their development. Most 19 yr olds are as physically developed as a 30 who are as developed as a 50 yr old. Because in youth events age (and height) plays such a large role you should try to make it more fare so that the 10 yr old newbie giant doesn't get a D when he is a terrible fencer.

[oiuyt]

The only reason that Summer Nationals Cadet is U16 is because it counts on the following year's selection for Cadet Worlds. For the purpose of this rule you can safely use U17 for Cadet.

-B :)

[bug]

Slo-Mo, you have made my day.

[westcoastsabre]

my captain my captain...

[JEC]

Insightful post, Capt! Knowing the issues of both extremes (my own son and being a veteran), I can easily appreciate the irony of the debate, and the unfairness of the ruling. If there were D3 and E3 tournaments, or the C3 tournaments were changed to award ratings to the top 32 (in competitions of 80 or more), then it would be much better.
For example:

Youth 12 Men's Foil @ 2003 Summer Nationals
(149 Competitors - top 32 earn points)
Group C3 competition

If this is our top national competition for this age group, it is ridiculous to only award 16 ratings.

However, I think that the issue is how well those ratings earn in age-limiting tournaments are likely to be validated in Open senior tournaments. In my experience, it is more likely that I would beat a "youth C" fencer than a "veteran C" fencer.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Too many E's isn't a big deal because when it comes to a big open event, the "fake" E's get roasted over the hot coals of reality.

[rukovsoft]

as i said in many other posts, this A B C D E system is ridiculous....

Latest example, i was fencing in a team event. we had bad starting qualification since we had theorically "low letters"...
Tehn we fence the winning team, we lose 45-44 in overtime by one touch...i m not mad about that, we all had fun and it was a great bout ! i d love to do it again.
On the other hand, we are the lowest seated team...but on the other hand a Y12 kid has a D so his team is higher seated than ours...that s ridiculous.

This is so stupid. In MA, before we have all those A's and B's blossoming (this year) it was almost impossible to get an A or B in some weapons...now since we have a lot of A's and B's (who mostly deserve it), overated C,D and E fencers appear...
the good thing is that i should be able to get a better US ranking soon....but is it REALLY MEANINGFUL..

simply use a system like in europe or the rest of the world !!!, give points for each NAC participants, not only top 32.
i think u should get your rankings at national competitions or sectionals...not local competitions. u have so many national or regional competitions, that it would give the opportunity for a lot of people to compete for real letters.

and forget about those meaningless letters !!!! ...it ll solve alot of problems and people will complain less. because right now, all the foreign fencers i know here just think it s a laughable system!!! i know a lot of US fencers and officials that agree with that too.

[rukovsoft]

actually i ve met a lot of relly weak B's...and a lot of A fencers that should be B's or C's. A and B are supposed to be the very good fencers, A's are supposed to be the killers.
I met a couple of really good A's, who aren t even in the points. same for a few B's.
since i ve arrived i ve beaten a lot of A's and B's...even i m still a C. yep i m a C. i renew it all the time, then it comes to get a B i screw by one touch in semi final, or final...i m always close, but i always screw...hehe i like screwing...
my point is that with a C is houldn t be able to beat all those a's and B's (and i beat a lot even outside MA)...
in europe, especially france, in the top rated 150 epee fencers there is no "overrated fencer"....they re all good you know what you re gonna get.(trust me, they would all be strong A's)

with the A B system, u could find a fake A....
i noticed though that people in the points in the US are most of the time really good fencers...but you have only 50 of them ranked. if you fence somebody in the points you tend get a good fencer (which is not always true).....but how about all the people that are not in the points....some of them have A or B but they are horrible !!!

conclusion: drop that system, and generalize the "point system". use coeffcients for competitions...
i end up last at a NAC i get one point.
some NAC are stronger tahn others for different reasons (time in the season, location...), so use coeffcient.
getting to 64 in some nac is a very good performance, while in others it just sucks....

what do you think? for those who ve been in europe, what do you think of our ranking system. especially in france?

[Inquartata]

I think---no.

Down with math! Down with labor-intensive point systems! Down with slavishly following the example of "Europe"!

[rukovsoft]

inq....us is following europe now?
i thought it was the contrary (mc donald, hollywood, genetically modified crops, corporate scandals...)

no sincereley. it s not that complicated.
it s just additons ans multiplications of points !!!! really easy and clear.

if europeans are better at fencing (though it s an easy generalization and though things tend to change), the ranking system may have to do with it...
our ranking system is the same one as the fie.
to get fie you do events. you get points for each round you pass. depending on the event you have a coefficient.

it s not europe you re following, but the FIE!!!!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by rukovsoft
no sincereley. it s not that complicated.
it s just additons ans multiplications of points !!!! really easy and clear.

Except for us math idiots. Particularly us LAZY math idiots.

you have a coefficient.

Gasp! Ack! You said---the C-word! Pardon me while I twitch and drool awhile...urk! Ack!

it s not europe you re following, but the FIE!!!!

"You say potato, and I say potahto..."

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Wizardly
There's a lot of fast and loose with fairness in that exerpt.

As with all properly executed satire!

Originally posted by Wizardly
I don't mind the comparison to age restricted youth tournaments to age restricted veterans tournaments. But you can't make the comparison to classification-restricted tournaments. Of course an E earned by an adult [and any other age group in attendance] at a U-tourney is more valid - it's a competition restricted by skill level, not age.

We went into this in such great detail the last time I won't overly belabor it. (I also haven't had nearly as coffee as last post!) But:
if you make the argument that an "E" at an age restricted event is lesser than an open meet "E", then you must ALSO believe that an "E" earned at an unrated tournament is a lesser "E" than one earned at an open, unrestricted event. This new scheme does nothing to address that issue.

And for the record, I've found the folks at USFA very helpful. I suspect that Glamdring guy made up large portions of the interview. But then, what would you expect from a former New York Times correspondent?

[westcoastsabre]

There isn't anything you really can do about it you have to have someway to make ratings without other ratings. otherwise it would be almost impossible for competititve fencing to come into a new area. rated competitive fencing, at least. or you could stop rating-restricted competitions, which would emliminate Div I, II, and III. There isn't a real solution to the problem here.

[Saber-Psycho]

If you're going to take away the chance for a good 10-12-14 fencer to get a rating, then you should take away the age restriction for div 1/1a/2/3, cadet and junior. It's simply not fair to make a 12 and under to go all the way thru junior points to be able to fencer div 3 when they can't get a rating.

What's the main point of div 1a, 2, 3 then to generate rating so if a 12 can't fence it because of the age restriction, and they can't get a rating in 12 or 14, what are they supposed to do?

THEN, if a 10 year old can't get a rating from their age group, but a 60 year old can?
Age discrimination plain and simple.

If you win an "A" for winning Y14 and an "A" for coming in 2nd in cadet, the Y14 doesn't count but the cadet one does?
Oh isn't this a great rule!! It clearly has my complete and full undying support.

[westcoastsabre]

Saber-psycho, it doesn't work like that. If a Y14 fencer earns an A in a Y14 event, he gets the A. The new rule simple eliminates the Group E1 and D1 classification changes in Cadet events and younger. Basically, you can't put a bunch of unclassified newbie 10 year olds in a room and have one of them earn a new classification. However, if those Newbie ten year olds have the classifications that would allow them to make the tournament a group C, B or A tournament. Then they can get the new classifications.

Also, if a 12 year old enters a senior competition, they still get the new classification.