One of the great things about fencing is that it continuously evolves. USA Fencing is constantly looking for new improvements and modifications. To tell the truth, many of them are really good, and the facts clearly show that we are experiencing some of the best times for USA Fencing. I personally really appreciate that USA Fencing continuously seeks ways to improve fencing in the country. Clearly, the sport grows, and the organization tries to keep up and address critical issues in every age category and division, from the youngest Y8 fencers to our veterans. 

However, not every modification is good; sometimes, we must look at them critically. I want to discuss one such change that was recently published.

The USFA released the new format for Y8 tournaments, which is a recommendation for the upcoming 2024-2025 season and a requirement for the new 2025-2026 season. I believe this requirement is problematic.

There are three aspects of the new requirement for the Y8 competition:

1. Short blade size

2. Shorten strip

3. New competition format

Having worked with young kids for many years, taken my own children to many Y8 competitions when they were that age, and seen many others competing in Y8 and not experiencing or witnessing any troubles, the first thought that comes to my mind is a simple question—Why? What problems did this requirement’s author(s) have seen that needed to be addressed?

Here’s what I believe is very problematic with this format. Some things do not make sense at all but have little impact or don’t create inevitable harm, and some, in my opinion, contradict the spirit of the sport and what we try to teach the kids.

Here’s what I think about each of them.

Short blade size for Y8 fencers

From one point, it does make sense – little kids have more difficulty controlling the weapon. However, this requirement puts additional strain on parents (and kids) to purchase yet another set of weapons. In many clubs, Y8 kids train and compete with Y10 kids – this is a typical situation as the Y10 category has a 2-year overlap with the Y8 category. Training with shorter blades than their ‘older’ opponents does not make sense since it will be unfair, causing younger kids to lose much more often.

Most coaches in such mixed classes want their fencers to train with a unified length. In competition, however, it might be a bit challenging for such kids to fence with a shorter blade than they were training with. This means that when such a kid goes to a competition, her/his parents would need to purchase another set of weapons to comply with the requirement.

Every coach and parent whose Y10 kid trains with a #5 blade would confirm that when such kids compete in Y10 events with short #2 blades, they often struggle—the distance and point control are different.

So while this proposal makes sense, it creates confusion for kids, difficulty for coaches in mixed environments, and additional expense for the parents. 

Shortened Strip Length for Y8 Events

Similar to the previous item, this is not a show-stopper. I don’t think this is really necessary, as it is unclear what the creators of this rule wanted to achieve. To make kids move less on the strip? If yes, why? If not – what is the real reason? 

In fencing, we develop our spatial awareness through many years of training. Why is it insistent that when a child fences the Y8 event on the first day, he/she needs to watch the short strip, and the next day, the boundary suddenly changes in the Y10 event? Should they fence a short strip in the club when fencing against 10 years olds or regular-length strip only to be confused in Y8 competition?

While kids will adapt to this new strip length when referees explain to them where the warming line ends during the competition, all this ordeal creates unnecessary nuance. It doesn’t solve any real problem while creating additional hustle.

Also, I would strongly advise against the example they suggest for marking the beginning of the new warning line—by placing cones on the side of the strip. This is simply a tripping hazard, which is a severe safety issue.

Competition Format

This requirement does not make any sense to me. Moreover, I believe it is absolutely wrong, given that we want to prepare our kids for the future. 

I must raise my concern about this format from many aspects, and I hope two things will happen:

1. The organizers will not implement this format this season

2. The tournament committee will review it again and cancel it

Seeding

Let’s start with a seeding, a simple (presumably) thing. 

Here’s what the new requirement says: “For fencers with the same rating/year, birth year and month will be used to determine order, with the older fencer being seeded ahead of the younger.”

For a youth tournament to get a rating, it must meet or exceed a C1 Rating. I only saw Y10 events at the national level (i.e., March NAC and USA Fencing Summer Nationals) award ratings. I never saw Y10 events award a rating in regional events. 

This means that this Y8 fencer was either medaled (typically with first place) at NAC or Summer Nationals in Y10 or was in the top 8 in a large Y12 Regional event. I’m curious to meet a rated Y8 fencer who undoubtedly is a new fencing prodigy. 

The new requirement assumes that we have at least two such kids in the same event, and then we must seed them by their birthday because, suddenly, it matters in Y8, which obviously didn’t matter for them in Y12 events. However, their birthday doesn’t make any difference for other unrated kids, unlike it does for rated kids. 

This is harmless and laughable since such a situation will never happen in reality, but it’s a clear sign that the authors of this requirement are very disconnected from the reality of youth fencing. That makes the whole requirement very questionable in my eyes—a person who doesn’t understand this simple thing about seeding and what is plausible/not plausible has really little understanding of youth fencing while having good intentions in mind.

Two-pool format with no direct elimination

That’s where I must yell – STOP THIS NONSENSE! 

The new format is following:

• After the first round, the second set of pools will be constructed based on results from the first round, with the top N fencers in the first pool. The next group is placed in the second pool, and the third in the pool after that (if applicable), until all pools have been constructed.
• Athletes then fence against the other fencers in their pool to determine final placement.
• Athletes in the top pool will fence off for places 1-N.
• Athletes in the second pool will fence off for places N+1 through (2N).

Every coach in the world says to their fencer – as long as you advance from the pool to the DE, you have a chance. I preach to my fencers that the only requirement for the pool is to get to the DE round. Direct Elimination is a completely different competition. How often have you seen a situation when a fencer who performed badly in pools gets a medal? This is not an exception – this is a fact in fencing, in every age category, from youth to veterans, and in any level of competition, from small in-house competitions to the regional and national tournaments to the World Championships.

So, a child with poor performance will be placed in the second or third pool in the second round and will have NO CHANCE to win a medal or improve their position in general.

REALLY?

Is that what we want to teach kids about fencing and about fairness? Is it that you have no second chance, that in this competition, you are totally screwed? 

Can you explain to this child in some way that the Y8 competition is cruel, that they don’t have an equal chance with everybody else, and that the Y8 rules are brutal but designed to develop their character as real fighters?

Am I the only one who sees the nonsense in this proposal?

I get this—the creator of this proposal wanted to ease the kids’ dealing with the defeat in direct elimination. A child who lost a DE will not go home in tears. They continue to fence the second pool.

Sorry, this doesn’t work like that. Please don’t try to remedy a situation in which we, coaches and parents, know what to do. We know how to talk to the kids about win and loss, we know how to instill in them the value of competition and not hang on the results, and we know how to deal with tears and disappointment. That’s part of our parental and coaching responsibility. And most of us are doing a damn good job at it.

By the way, this new format will not eliminate tears and disappointments; in fact, I believe it will create more. Basically every child that not in a first pool will have no chance of podium finish or even an improvement of their position. For me this is unthinkable.

I envision this dialogue between a coach and the 8th-place child that happens after the first round.

“Sorry, honey, this single touch in your last bout in the first pool caused you to slip from #7 position to the #8 position. You are now in the second pool in the next round, and unfortunately, darling, you are screwed – no medal for you today. Next time you should know better to check your indicator and not lose these stupid touches. This is a good lesson, honey, that in real life there is no second chance. You screwed your pool, seeding #8 out of 35 fencers and voila – no medal for you today. Learn this. But no worries, because of that you became a real warrior, sweetheart, and when you finally reach Division 1, your soul will be hardened enough from your Y8 experience. I have faith in you. Go Y8 warriors!”

Parting Words

I know I’ve been harsh in my critique. I understand that the person who created this proposal wants the best for USA Fencing and definitely for our new generation of young fencers. For the last quarter century, American fencing has shown that we do something good, and these 7—or 8-year-old kids are our future champions who will represent our country at the highest stages of international competitions.

I get the motivation.

But motivation alone is not sufficient. What is missing in this proposal is a connection to reality, to how youth competitions run, and to what keeps the kids in fencing. Once again, I plead to the tournament committee in USA Fencing to review these new rules, create a dialogue between people on the ground who coach these youth competitors, and ask this simple question: Does all this make sense before mandating these changes?

I hope that new board members will review this again and cancel this requirement.

Until then, Go Y8 Warriors!