USA Fencing just announced a change to the domestic points system. Call it anything other than seismic and you are underselling it.

Here is their announcement: A Simpler Path Through the Sport

This is a major change in how American domestic fencing is run, and it will touch literally every fencer, no matter how hard the article works to make it sound routine.

When I first heard about the proposal a few months ago, I was skeptical. “Skeptical” is the polite version.

Then I read the article, sat with it, and turned all the way around. I love this.

There is plenty of logistics still to sort out and adjust, and that is exactly what the two-year trial is for. But the direction is right.

The problem it solves

The thing driving all of this is event size. We all know the events that draw 300-plus fencers, mostly Men’s Epee and to some degree Men’s Sabre. Those are long, grueling days. There have been attempts to fix it before: two-day formats, two events in one day, each with a qualifier feeding the next.

For a long time I argued that the cleanest fix is to split NACs by weapon. Epee one weekend, the right-of-way weapons (foil and sabre) on another. That alone would shorten the days, ease the venue crunch, and give referees room to breathe. Two years ago I also proposed to run NAC differentl (in this and that posts).

USA Fencing took a different route. It solves the size problem, and it quietly solves a handful of others at the same time. I think it solves them well.

The conversation I have every year

Every season I sit down with parents to plan the year ahead for their fencer. The longest conversations are almost always with the less experienced fencers who are just stepping into national competition.

Take a 15-year-old, E-rated, trying to figure out where to compete. Under the current system this fencer is eligible for Cadet, Junior, Senior Division 3, Division 2, and Division 1A.

When I think about where that fencer can perform well and actually develop, my usual order is Div 3, then Div 2, then Cadet, then Junior or Div 1A.

Here is why. Cadet and Junior NACs are stacked with some of the best young fencers in the world, in every weapon and both genders. For a relatively inexperienced fencer, that is a brutal place to begin. In most cases they will not make it out of pools.

Yes, Cadet and Junior are the age-appropriate events, and they are more fun socially. Senior divisions have no age cap, and for some young fencers facing a grown adult feels intimidating. But I have always told my fencers the same thing: once the mask goes on, it is just another fencer across the strip with similar technical skills.

Still, sending a young fencer to a Cadet or Junior NAC always came with a dilemma. National experience matters. But the ladder is steep, and it takes a long time before that fencer feels at home at the national level.

Division 1 raised the same problem from the other end. A C-rated fencer is technically eligible for Div 1, and there is something genuinely inspiring about landing in a pool or a DE with Olympians, world champions, even Lee Keifer, a three-time Olympic champion when she shows up to a national event. It is inspiring, and in the same breath it is intimidating and nearly impossible. You are fencing someone so far above your level that the result is decided before you salute.

For years I wished for a middle tier. Something that is truly national, but reasonable in skill. “Democratic,” if I can borrow the word.

USA Fencing just built it.

The split

National Cadet, Junior, and Division 1 events will now split into two tiers, called for now Elite and National. The split is dynamic. When an event crosses 168 fencers, it divides automatically: the highest-ranked fencers go into Elite, everyone else competes in National. At 168 or fewer, the event simply runs as a single competition. When it does split, Elite is capped at 112 and National holds up to 224.

So the same 15-year-old from my example can fence an age-appropriate, national-level event with a fair shot at competing. The dilemma I described disappears. And the Elite tier gets harder too, because there are no easy bouts left in it. Both groups develop faster and significantly. That is good for the fencers, and through them, good for the sport in this country.

As the article explains, points are now awarded at every level, from local to international, on one unified list, and your six best results count. I would suggest re-reading the announcement before going further, because from here I want to walk through the questions that came up for me in my initial reading.

Questions, observations, and a few quibbles

• Regional events become significant.
• Cadet and Junior fencers now earn points regardless of their region, which makes any RJCC anywhere attractive for this age group. This is significant. Previously there was little to no incentive for these fencers to travel to another region for its RJCC. Most attended other regions’ RJCCs only because they ran alongside an SYC, so Y14 fencers fenced Cadet and Junior events in the other region since it made financial sense and added rating and experience. Now the situation changes. Cadet and Junior fencers can fence anywhere and earn points. This is a huge deal. Pause here to understand why. It creates a real reason for fencers to travel and compete, enriching both themselves and the fencers in those regions. A win for everybody.
• ROCs become more attractive. ROCs awarded regional points only to the top 40%. With one list that rewards a deeper field, more fencers walk away with something, which makes the event worth entering for many more of them.
• The future of SJCC is unclear. SJCC is usually treated like SYC but for Cadet and Junior, meaning the top 40% earn national points wherever it is held. The USFA does not say how SJCC points will be classified: regional, national, or elite. If SJCC keeps national-level value rather than regional, that is a real boost for it, but we need to see the direction. Numbers-wise, very few events at the last SJCC topped 168 fencers, and where they did the overage was small for everything except Junior Men’s Epee. So I am curious how the USFA will treat the SJCC.
• Ratings will lose their meaning fast. Today ratings are used for seeding everywhere, even nationally, because once you seed by national points you still have to seed the fencers who have none, and that is done by rating. In the new system everyone has points, so there is no reason to seed by rating. Ratings will keep existing as a skill metric and to separate Division 1, 2, and 3, but they will not carry the weight they do now.
• I actually love seeding on one unified criterion. Ratings stopped reflecting real strength a long time ago, because you can earn the same rating locally and nationally. An A from a top-8 finish in a Div 1 NAC is not the same animal as an A from a local A4. National ranking has been the only honest strength signal, and now seeding runs on exactly that. And everyone has a national ranking, from the moment they signed up for fencing.
• What about Division 2, 3, 1A, and the new Adult division? I cannot tell from the explanation how these will be treated, at the regional level or the national level, or what the point system for them will be. The new Adult division in particular is a fresh addition to regional events, and it is not clear how it slots into all of this. That is a real gap I would like to see closed.
• National championship eligibility is undefined. There is no published criteria yet for championship eligibility in Cadet, Junior, or Division 1, and it is not clear whether we will have two championship events per age category. The USFA says the qualification criteria for events like Junior Olympics and Summer Nationals will live in the 2026-27 Athlete Handbook, so we will need to watch and see how it actually works. And the open question is real: if Elite caps at 112, how many go to National, and where do the cut lines fall?
• And a sillier question that follows from it. Will we crown a “Cadet Elite National Champion” and a “Cadet National National Champion”? The naming falls apart fast. Instead of Elite and National, why not borrow the language other sports already use: Premier League (Elite), First League (National), Second League (Div 1A), Third League (Div 2), Fourth League (Div 3). Then it is clear to everyone, including people outside the sport. “USA Fencing Premier League National Champion” tells a story. Try explaining “Div 3 National Champion” to someone who does not fence and watch the question form in their eyes.
• Legacy system preservation. Does preserving the Legacy system mean the exact same point calculations and event designations we use now? It looks that way. For the two systems to run side by side, the same rules for designated tournaments have to apply to both. Points from a non-designated Junior World Cup, for instance, should not count in either system. My confusion came only because the word “designated” was missing from the international points table in the announcement. Easy fix.

Bottom line

So yes, there are questions to answer, calibrations to run, clarifications to chase, and some new vocabulary to get used to. But this change is great for USA Fencing, and it is a real step toward an even better experience for fencers.

Salute to USA Fencing and the working group that put this together.

I’m sure more questions will come to mind once we start running the events and see how it all unfolds in reality. And I’ll be back with another post once the dust settles (or, more likely, rises). So stay tuned.