Confusion about USFA "Fence for Fun" membership

At least in my area, confusion seems to be rife about the USFA's option
of a "fence for fun" membership ($30 instead of the regular $40). It
states on the membership form that it's the same as the regular
membership, except that the fencer can't compete in national qualifier
or national events (but he can upgrade for $10 at any time if he wants
to). This doesn't seem complicated - and it's a good option to encourage
local recreational fencers to sign up (as the lower price takes some of
the sting out).

But the last two times that a friend of mine has tried to renew his USFA
membership at a tournament, he's gotten weird misinformation about the
"fence for fun" option. Last year, he was told that if he signed up for
the "fence for fun" membership, he couldn't fence in a tournament. (???
Then why would he want to join the USFA?) Since he wanted to fence that
day, he had to cough up the extra $10. Then yesterday he renewed his
membership and was told that under the "fence for fun" option he could
fence, but couldn't earn any ratings.

This confusion is particularly unfortunate because the kind of person
who's going to be interested in the "fence for fun" option is exactly
the kind of person who *isn't* fully versed in the USFA's rules and
regulations, and is likely to accept at face value whatever the person
at the check-in table tells him.

--Holly

to the best of my knowledge:

He can fence in tournaments, but not qualifiers.

He can't be awarded classifications.You earn a classification by placing in a
tournament and then the USFA awards the classffication.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation of non-US fencers in a USFA
tournament. They can earn them, but the classifications are not awarded by the
USFA. But in future tournaments, the fencer can be considered to have the
equivalent of the classification "earned" for the purposes of seeding the
fencers into pools. If a foreign fencer wins an "A" tournament, you don't
consider him to be unclassified the next time he fences.

Bill Hall

fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote in
news:20031116113742.21457.00002131@mb-m10.aol.com:

> He can't be awarded classifications.You earn a classification by
> placing in a tournament and then the USFA awards the
> classffication.

OK, I just looked at the membership form again. This has got to be the
most uninformative explanation ever: "USFA classification is not
applicable to membership type."

What the heck is that supposed to parse as? With some guesswork, it
could be interpreted as "The awarding of USFA classifications is done
without any regard to what type of member you are" or as "As this kind
of member, USFA classification is not applicable to you" (ie. you
can't earn one).

If it's the latter, what on earth were they thinking? Earning ratings
*diminishes* the number of events you can fence in - an unrated fencer
can fence in Us and Opens and everything in between. Does the USFA
really want E or D-quality fencers competing in U events? Not to
mention screwing up the seeding in pools - Us suddenly become even
more of a wild card.

My husband is currently a competition member, and has a D. He only
fences locally, though. Next year, if he switches to a "fence for
fun" membership, does his D rating go away, allowing him to fence in U
tournaments again?

--Holly, puzzled

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:50:31 -0600, "Holly E. Ordway"
<OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:
> OK, I just looked at the membership form again. This has got to be the
> most uninformative explanation ever: "USFA classification is not
> applicable to membership type."
>
> What the heck is that supposed to parse as? With some guesswork, it
> could be interpreted as "The awarding of USFA classifications is done
> without any regard to what type of member you are" or as "As this kind
> of member, USFA classification is not applicable to you" (ie. you
> can't earn one).
>
> If it's the latter, what on earth were they thinking?

I believe they were thinking that earning a classification is a
privilege, and the chance of earning one would motivate people to
cough up the extra $10. At least that's the impression I got from
discussions when they came up with the FFF membership category a few
years ago.

Personally, I believe this is a perversion of the classification
system, which is "for the purpose of providing reasonable equality of
strength in the seeding of competitions." (USFA Operations Manual,
Rev. 2000.09, p. 41.)

> My husband is currently a competition member, and has a D. He only
> fences locally, though. Next year, if he switches to a "fence for
> fun" membership, does his D rating go away, allowing him to fence in U
> tournaments again?

I believe so. I don't think the USFA considered that. :-)

-Mark-

Mark C. Orton wrote:

>>My husband is currently a competition member, and has a D. He only
>>fences locally, though. Next year, if he switches to a "fence for
>>fun" membership, does his D rating go away, allowing him to fence in U
>>tournaments again?
>>
>>
>
>I believe so. I don't think the USFA considered that. :-)
>
>-Mark-
>
>

What happens when someone who's FFF does well in a tournament and falls
into a slot that would give a rating? Should the FFF'er be skipped and
the next person down be given the rating (if eligible)? Should the
FFF'er even be considered when calculating for possible ratings in a
tournament?

I had always interpreted that a FFF membership was good for local event
ratings and standings only; no national event rating and standings.
Either way you get the USFA magazine.

Perhaps someone from the USFA (I'm sure they lurk on this NG) could see
about an article being written explaining this better. We can't be the
only ones that aren't entirely clear as to the differences.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In article <bpehhu$90g$1@news.monmouth.com>, Amy & Joseph Kormann
<ajkormann@monmouth.com> writes:

>What happens when someone who's FFF does well in a tournament and falls
>into a slot that would give a rating?

A distant analogy is when a person gets black carded.

Should the FFF'er be skipped and
>the next person down be given the rating (if eligible)?

No

Should the
>FFF'er even be considered when calculating for possible ratings in a
>tournament?

Yes. Here perhaps we should use the analogy of a person who withdraws for
medical reasons. They get to keep what they earned up to that point. They are
still considered to have participated, for example the number of participants
can affect the awarding of classifications.

>
>I had always interpreted that a FFF membership was good for local event
>ratings and standings only; no national event rating and standings.
>Either way you get the USFA magazine.
>
>Perhaps someone from the USFA (I'm sure they lurk on this NG) could see
>about an article being written explaining this better. We can't be the
>only ones that aren't entirely clear as to the differences.

Ha, Ha, Ha. Flounder in the morass with the rest of us. The last person of
stature who participated in this mini-circus was George Kolombatovich who
explained a matter of rules about three years ago. Come to think of it, haven't
heard from him since.

>
>--
>Amy and Joseph Kormann

Bill Hall

"Fencerbill" <fencerbill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031118234938.29660.00001673@mb-m24.aol.com
> The last
> person of stature who participated in this mini-circus was George
> Kolombatovich who explained a matter of rules about three years ago.
> Come to think of it, haven't heard from him since.

I think he got ticked off at being constantly argued with and told,
"That's just *your* opinion!"

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In article <3fb82ddf.613311@news.verizon.net>, ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C.
Orton) writes:

>I believe so. I don't think the USFA considered that. :-)
>
>-Mark-

Yeah, they do that a lot!

The main confusion I come across is that people don't understand that, even if
you live in Minnesota, a local tournament in Iowa, is still a local tournament,
and FFF members can go them: FFF members are are barred from any National, or
National Qualifying Event (Including Team Qualifiers).

I confess, I really hadn't given much thought to the people who aren't
interested in National Comp's but that might fence for years, and still be a
FFF members, even though they could be fairly capable by then...

Seems like NOT awarding them classification is only going to introduce further
inconsisentcies into a system already struggling with the inconsistencies of
peoples' actual peak performances..

No easy answers to this one, either!...