Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by oiuyt, May 31, 2018.
March 15-17, 2019
Weight value 0.2
Great news. Hopefully this means the end of regional points and a more streamlined qualification path.
However, what about awarding national points to cadet or junior events held in conjuction with SYCs, such as the Capitol Clash, or junior events held with ROCs?
The USFA still cannot seem to get its act together regarding weight values. This is another example of reducing the points value of an event in advance of registration. Let's say the event has over 50% of the top 16 Cadets and Juniors in each weapon participating. Is it really worth a WV of 0.2? Of course not. If entry is open to every fencer in the US, then it really should a SF event , not a WV event. Another confusing, poorly thought out "test event." If I were a top ranked Cadet or Junior, I wouldn't waste my time with any event with a WV of 0.2. Not worth the airfare, hotel fees, or entry fee. Let's see, how many years have teacup and I been posting about this nonsense.....
Given the 0.2x weight, the proximity to JOs, and no mention of team points, I suspect this is event is not targeted at the top cadets or juniors. The point value seems designed to not impact squad selection for designated events for either cadet or junior.
Things to think about - first, as another qualification path to JOs and July challenge, are these Super Cadet and Junior events going to balloon the registrations for the national events to unmanageable levels?
Second, how will these Super events impact the RJCCs which seem to be successful? (If you qualify for JOs and Summer Nationals in March, isn’t that a disincentive to attending the RJCCs which offer no national points?) If there are multiple Super C&J events like there are SYCs, it seems like a major blow to the RJCCs.
I'd expect Super CJ is the potential replacement for RJCCs, possibly moving them closer to SYCs.
Is the national office running this event?
I just don't see how this is going to replace the RJCCs. I expect that it will run similar to how the SYC compliments (or overlaps) the RYC tournaments. Both will eventually provide qualification through yet another splitting of the qualification paths. One will become better attended, and the other will become an actual regional event.
Why would that be a good idea? Cadets and Juniors compete more than enough and this will only add to that. Plus the issue of large degrees of differences in strength across the regions. You see this in the SYCs already... some are quite easy, others much more difficult.
Someone from my club asked what I think is a valuable lesson: how many days of school does a kid have to miss to have a shot at a world cup?
The short answer is “a lot”. But you also need to be strategic in choosing which events to do. The points structure for this new “super” cadet and junior event makes it very clear that it will have no impact on those in serious contention for a world team. So your friend can skip it if that’s their goal.
Do you mean to make a World Team? To "have a shot at a world cup" you just have to be in the top 20 who want to go, so not as taxing on missing school if the kid is good and you cherry-pick what events to go to. But if making a team is the goal, plan on missing a ton (so much so that a lot of parents I've talked to with kids in the running for a team opt for the flexibility of home-schooling). At any rate, it is way too much and adding a Super Junior Cadet thingy is not helping.
Great because the NO and national coaches may be addressing the confusing qualification system, the inconsistencies of the "regional" system and the complicated points systems of regional, rolling and team points.
1. SYCs are really national events as national points are awarded and everyone has the opportunity to earn national points while RJCCs are regional events which only award regional points to those from the region where the event is held. (ROCs are another version of the regional system, where unlike RJCCs, everyone has the opportunity to earn "regional" points, not just those in the region the event is held.)
2. Cadet and junior events, RCC and RJCs, added to SYCs disadvantage those fencers not in the region where the SYC is held. As do RJCCs added to ROCs.
3. Yes, there should be strength factors, NOT predetermined weight values, applied to ALL events which award "national" points, including SYCs AND designated European Cadet Circuit events. Since ECC events also vary in strength yet fencers are awarded more in placement compared to national cadet, junior, division one and junior world cup events.
I guess what I am trying to understand is what is the purpose here? Qualification paths (such as the RJCC system) have different objectives than the national rankings (leading to teams and who can go to world cups).
Based on what I have seen, cadets have to compete too much. Adding Super Junior Cadet Circuits and in addition what you are proposing (national points at SYCs etc.) expands this to an arms race of who has the most time and money.
I believe that the Super JCC is intended to provide an entry level to compete at NACs. To Teacup’s point, I believe a move from regionally based tournaments (with all kinds of qualifications as to where and for whom points count, randomness of the competitive field, etc.), to nationally based tournaments provides a more level playing field for this demographic, particularly if the SJCCs expand and cover the country. At this current weight value, these are not stepping stones to World Teams, and I don’t believe they are intended to be so.
The “arms race” when it comes to making World Teams starts with being able to afford the time and money to attend all applicable NAC events. Per above, SJCCs should not add to this burden. What has caused the situation to explode is the circumstance under which those fencers who ultimately make Cadet and/or Junior World Teams are doing so substantially based on scores from upper age divisions. While this is not an absolute requirement, it does put pressure on would-be Cadet World Team members to consider Junior World Cups. Certainly, would-be Junior World Team members must consider Senior World Cups, although the leap is much further.
There are 2 immediate solutions to blunt the arms race. First, only count scores, at least on the international level, at events of the particular age division. So, for example, the only international scores to count toward a CWT would be from cadet designated events. Second, implement a Strength Factor for cadet designated events. Cadet designated events currently offer a 75% ‘bonus’ in points. A win at one of these events is worth more than a gold medal at a Junior NAC event. This latter solution does not apply to JWT where the points are in line with our domestic NACs and there is already a Strength Factor applied to such events.
All said, however, we cannot solve the problem of economic means. It is a personal choice and the way of the world. If funds were available, USA Fencing could consider limited funding for competitive fencers who, but for finances, would seriously compete for a World Team. Otherwise, c'est la vie….
Having only one group of points, rather than having group one for domestic and group two for international, would also level the playing field economically. When Div I results were included in Group 2, cadets could make world championship teams without extensive international travel.
Having a system where only cadets and juniors in the region of the event earn "regional" points, also economically disadvantages fencers, particularily cadets who are still fencing in SYCs. The regions aren't necessarily set up for the most economical travel expenses. For example, why can't fencers in California earn points at RJCC in Portland or Seattle, some of which are added to ROCs? For those in California, It is often easier and cheaper to fly to Portland and Seattle, compared to Denver, which is in Region 4, and a different time zone.
Not sure why an "entry level" is important. We're talking national points, not entry-level fencing. Even if a couple of hundred points are at stake this can (and has) made the difference between either making a team or determining who can go to world-cups (top 20), so will not the result mean everyone with those goals will be looking to fly to every Super JCC - in addition to what they have to do today? Why is this necessary? They are competing enough, and introducing the concept of regional tournaments where you get national points opens up the system to massive bias.
I wish I could grab a beer with you and teacup to understand your POV better.
Would love that, Piste!
I say "entry level" because, although World Team positions are sometimes determined by small amounts of points, the number of points-slots that count toward the total are limited. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that 80 points earned for winning a cadet event, or 120 points earned for winning a junior event at one of these SJCCs would ever rise to a level to fill a slot in a World Team member's selection of points. More likely, such tournaments will be used by much less competitive fencers to gain national points at the Cadet and Junior levels, thereby qualifying for Junior Olympics and for the Summer Nationals and July Challenge events.
I was not using the term "entry level" to indicate that these are beginner fencers. My guess is that they will be fencers with substantial experience and some decent ratings who have generally failed to break through onto the Cadet or Junior Rolling Points List. In some cases they will be ranked fencers looking for a bit of a bump and, yes, perhaps into the top 20 for Cadet, or even the top 12 for Juniors, to be eligible for cadet designated or JWC competitions. However, assuming these WVs are sustained, I just don't see even 80 or even 120 points making a difference....
Here's what I don't understand: if everyone is saying that the points won't matter, why should these events award points?
What happened to local events being entry-level? For youth, there was a good argument to larger events because there was a wide gulf between the 4-12 person regional tournament (especially in saber) and the 130 person NAC. For Junior and Cadet, these people can fence senior events. They have access to big tournaments. So what does this do differently?
I do not think that anyone has made the global statement that the points won't matter. For myself, I do not think the points will matter for purposes of World Team selection, and probably not even for selection to compete in designated international events. The points matter to the extent to which they get fencers onto national points lists which qualifies them to compete at various national events. Presumably there are experienced fencers out there who have not been able to break the top 32 at a national cadet or junior event. This disables them from competing at JOs and in July Challenge events. A more accessible, less competitive "national" event, awarding national points, may accomplish this for such fencers.
I also don't think we should get bogged down with (my fault) "entry level".... As I explained, I did not intend to use the phrase as a synonym for "beginner". Local and regional events do give appropriate competition for beginning and intermediate fencers. Events such as SJCCs provide access to national points with the immediate benefit of gaining a national ranking.
I can't help but wonder if awarding national points to an expanded number of Cadet/Junior events won't severely impact and perhaps even eliminate local and regional fencing at the cadet and junior levels for all but raw beginning fencers in that age group. We've already seen that the implementation of ROCs has impacted non-ROC local and regional events with decreased participation (this is true in a number of Divisions I've talked to).
I've seen a drop in the participation of Cadet/Junior fencers in local events since the rise of the RJCCs. I wonder if expanding National points won't just accelerate this trend?
Separate names with a comma.