As we previously discussed, with the growth of American fencing both in quality and in numbers, there arose a need to review how our national events are structured, particularly for Senior level national tournaments. The unprecedented success of American fencers on the international stage, from Cadet World Cups to Olympic Games, along with the increasing popularity of our sport, demands that we rethink our competition format to better serve this new reality.
In the previous post, I suggested a different approach to structuring Senior NACs. Instead of using traditional rating-based divisions, I proposed a dynamic two-day format where fencers are placed into divisions based on their actual performance at the event. The first day serves as a qualifier, with all fencers competing to determine their placement into Division 1, 2, or 3 for the second day. This approach ensures that divisions truly reflect current competitive levels rather than historical ratings.
We also discussed how regional events would become crucial qualifying competitions for Senior NACs, with rolling regional points determining qualification. This change would encourage stronger fencers to participate in regional events, creating better competitive opportunities for all fencers in the region. Now, let’s dive deeper into how these changes affect the structure of Senior Regional and National points, and why the traditional rating system might need reconsideration in modern fencing.
A New Structure of Senior Regional and National Points
I recommend reconsidering how regional points for Division 1A ROCs are awarded. Following are the changes I suggest:
Currently only the top 40% receive points. I recommend every person receive points in the same manner as RJCC or RYC award points. There is one significant change compared to RYC or RJCC for seniors: fencers earn points in any ROC competition, but they are ranked only within their region, not nationally like today.
This will allow any fencer to get regional points, and if strong fencers from different regions attended not their region, their results will not affect this region. On the contrary, it will bring additional benefit of highly competitive fencing to this region.
On a national level, it will make sense to review the points too based on the new structure and it will also align with the new proposal from the tournament committee (TC) about change of the national points.
Following this TC proposal, there will be a single point standing list, and all 3 Divisions will earn national points proportionally to their level but at every place in the competition (not only top 40%). This is in order to incorporate points from all Divisions into a single list. Of course, the higher the Division, the more points it will award.
Diminishing Importance of Rating
When you look at the top Senior fencers you can see that rating-wise they can be a year or two behind. For them – rating is not important at all, all that matters for them is national point standing, since this is the only qualification criteria for the national team.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Let’s say a fencer got A rating at age 12 while still in 7th grade. So what’s next? Will she worry about her A rating for the rest of her fencing career? Will she be able to get a higher rating after she got her A? Does it say anything about her fencing other than in a specific competition with the right circumstances at the right time she succeeded to get far enough to reach this rating? Will her A rating define her future result, her competitive path or her prospects for anything? Most probably not.
Also, the ratings are devalued. You can get A rating in super hard national level competition (for example, Div1 NAC today) which is A4 level and you can get A rating in a small local, 15-person A1 rated competition. But these two A’s are completely different, even if on paper they look the same. And also, look how often we see fencers with their current rating being 2 or 3 years old as they never succeeded to renew it since they first earned it, hinting at the possibility of having one successful day with all stars aligned versus consistent level during several seasons.
Today, it’s impossible to compare two fencers on the basis of rating only. How can you compare Lee Keifer, an A-rated fencer, to a local competition champion who has the same rating as Lee, or maybe even higher if Lee didn’t compete nationally this season? The answer is of course not, since A-rating in this sense means nothing without looking at the national ranking.
What Are Ratings For?
In my mind, ratings serve two main purposes:
First of all, rating by itself is an important validation of personal progress. You earned a rating and you know your skill has grown. It’s your personal benchmark and motivational tool. We couldn’t underestimate the importance of these.
Second, ratings should be used for seeding in every competition along with the national points, and also qualification when needed.
I also think that youth competitions should not award any ratings regardless of the level of competition unless it is a national competition. Ratings should be awarded only from Cadet level.
There are two reasons for that. First, it’s hard to compare a youth 12 rated fencer to the same level adult rated fencer. It doesn’t really make sense in most cases.
Another reason is that too many young fencers are too locked in their thinking about ratings. The current environment promotes this thinking, but the mental lock is unnecessary. Too many times I heard from the young fencer “if I only get 1 place up I will get my rating.” This is wrong and detrimental thinking – kids should think about their fencing, their actions and not about whether winning the next round or having an indicator higher by a few points will advance them in a rating. This will also decrease unhealthy competition between parents and young fencers.
Practical Implementation
Planning of the Senior NACs
Let’s look at a concrete example of how to plan such NACs based on the approximate numbers from the Division 1 Men’s Epee in the last October NAC, with a total 433 competitors.
Based on these numbers, 401 fencers start the first day qualifier (=433-32)
After two rounds of DE’s, we will have for the second day:
- Division 1 – 192 fencers
- Division 2 – 120 fencers (top half of remaining fencers, i.e., (433-192)/2
- Division 3 – 120 fencers (bottom half of remaining fencers, i.e., (433-192)/2
These are very healthy numbers for a very good level tournament at each Division. Having Junior and Veteran events adjacent to the Senior NAC will make an opportunity for everyone to fence for 3 days at the national level, making it much better to utilize time and money for an opportunity to compete nationally.
Division 1 National Championship and July Challenge
The Division 1 Championship during April NAC and July Challenge can be conducted using almost the same format as today with slight modification. For example:
- Top 48 fencers on Junior National Point List
- Top 24 fencers on Cadet National Point List
- Top 208 fencers on Senior National Point List Total 280 fencers (40 pools) with 210 fencers promoted to the DE round for an incomplete table of 256 (25% cut).
There are no Division 2 and 3 NACs in April NAC.
Division 2 and 3 Championships during Summer Nationals
After exclusion of Division 1 fencers competing at July Challenge, the rest of the fencers at the national point list will be divided to two halves – top 50% compete for the Division 2 National Title and bottom 50% compete for the Division 3 National Title, with applicable caps.
Rethinking Division 1A Championship
Frankly, I don’t see a reason for the Division 1A Championship. It made some sense with the previous definition of Divisions, but it makes much less sense now. However, if people insist, I can suggest two options:
Option #1 is everybody on the national point list can sign up for Division 1A Championship based on the cap. However, in this case cap is not “first come, first served”, but based on their national rank.
Option #2 is similar but based on the regional points and proportional to the region size.
I personally prefer option #2 as it gives a “regional” flavor to this national championship and also promotes the importance of the regionals even more. Those highly ranked national fencers would need to participate in regionals to qualify if they want to compete at the Division 1A Championship.
Cadet and Junior National Events
Similarly to Senior Events, we should implement regional qualifications for Cadet and Juniors. Unlike in Seniors, I don’t think we should have any Divisions for them, so mostly the regional events will serve as qualifiers and cap quotas. We can have an automatically qualified number of fencers. For example, top 64 Juniors or Cadets will automatically qualify for any Junior or Cadet NAC or championship, respectively, and the rest will qualify via their regional path.
Veteran NACs
When we talk about NACs most of the time this important age group is overlooked.
I think this disservice to the veterans community should be addressed. Veterans events are small compared to other age groups and we should find a way to schedule them regularly during Senior NACs.
Having them scheduled during the Senior NACs (I recommend only age-groups) allows a veteran fencer to compete in two events (up to three days). However, for many veterans this might be too challenging, so I suggest that a veteran has an option to “opt” directly for the Division 3 event. This will allow them to fence only 2 days – one day their age-group event and another day a Division 3 event. However, any veteran has an equal opportunity to fence on the first day of the Divisional Qualifier and aim to compete in any Division the next day. It’s up to them based on their schedule and competitive readiness.
Implementation Timeline
This is a draft proposal that I already discussed with some board members. I know some other national coaches had similar discussions. Based on these discussions and my additional thinking about this, I came to this proposal.
Of course, there are a lot of details to understand and finalize and create a final draft for review and approval.
I think that the current season 2024-2025 could be used for this discussion and finalizing. We all know the National event format should be changed and both the Board, National Office and Tournament Committee are working hard on finding the right formula. This proposal is just one attempt which I believe makes sense for the Senior Division.
I put forward this proposal with so many details and attention to different aspects, from points to ratings to numbers, in order to elicit a dialogue among different bodies, from the Tournament Committee, to coaches, to parents, to Board, to National Office. When we talk, discuss, argue and weigh together what is good and right for American Fencing, we will reach even higher than we did in the last quarter century.
And so, for the future of American Fencing!
Excellent suggestions .
Just a reminder , this rating system doesn’t exist in other countries , as much as I can recall