Vets can fence senior. Senior can't fence vets. Thus senior NRPS should be used to seed an event with both seniors (fencers aged 13+) and seniors (veterans).* *not so veiled reference to the other ongoing thread about changing the names of age groups. This is the reasoning by which we seed Y14 by Y14 points and not Y12 points because all Y12's can fence Y14 but not vice versa. But what I think you're saying is what I've been saying about how not enough of the fencing populace is on the NRPS. This is somewhat similar to the discussion of whether or not all A's are created equal. Theoretically, a fencer who earns their A in a mixed vetcombined event is of a similar level to a fencer who wins a Y12 men's NAC and to a fencer who finishes 8th in a competitive A4 men's ROC and to a fencer who wins their local 15-man A1 event. The idea of ratings is they transcend genders and age groups. A 12-year-old A is similar enough to an 18yo A is similar enough to a 29yo A is similar enough to a 45yo A is similar enough to a 70yo A, and for each age, a male A is similar enough to a female A. The question then is what is our definition of "similar enough." If we were to define "similar enough" as "exactly the same," then pretty much everyone would have to have their own unique ranking (i.e. a national ranking system that includes everyone, or an Elo-esque system), or we say "similar enough" means two fencers of the same rating are more likely than not to fence a close DE, or what have you. We seem to be content to say that "similar enough" means that an Olympic champion has the same rating as someone fencing for one-year and gets their A due to some raw talent in an A1 event to a Y12 prodigee to a vet60 NAC medalist. People just need to realize when we're discussing the ratings and rankings system that this is what's going on, and then make a personal determination if they're happy with this definition of "similar enough" or not.