For years, I could recite the USA Fencing event rating table from memory. Ask me what rating a fencer would earn for finishing 12th in a B3 event, and I’d answer instantly: D rating. Everyone in the fencing world knew that the large rated events must have at least 64 fencers. That number—64—was so fundamental to our rating system that it became second nature to anyone involved in tournament organization or fencing development. I think it came from the table of 64 of the Direct Elimination Tableau.

So when I was explaining the rating requirements to a parent last week and noticed the new table  in the 2025-2026 Athlete Handbook showed 63 competitors instead of 64 for major rating events (C3, B3, A3, and A4), I dismissed it as a typo. After all, these requirements had been stable for so long that a change seemed impossible without major announcement.

But it wasn’t a typo. USA Fencing has quietly updated the rules last season, changing the minimum competitor requirement for “big rating” events from 64 to 63 fencers. If you missed this change like I did, read on.

Why This Matters More Than You Think

Your first reaction might be: “So what? One person more or less—how significant can that be?” But this single-digit change addresses a fundamental problem in tournament organization.

The issue lies in how tournaments structure their pools. Fencing events optimize around pools of 7 fencers, which creates clean divisions and efficient strip usage. Here’s the math that matters:

• 63 fencers divide perfectly into 9 pools of 7 fencers each
• 64 fencers require 10 pools: 4 pools of 7 and 6 pools of 6

That tenth pool creates logistical challenges that many tournament venues simply cannot accommodate. Regional tournaments with many simultaneous events in different age/gender/weapon/divisions often operate with limited strips, and adding another pool means requiring an additional strip and at least one additional referee  for several hours. In many cases this simply is not possible without running the events past a reasonable night hour. For many events, this single extra pool was the difference between offering a C3/B3/A3/A4 rating with 70 and up fencers, or deliberately capping the field at a lower number of competitors, 63, thereby limiting the event rating to C2, B2 or A2 on its onset.

I’ve seen this limitation repeatedly with many tournaments. Our own AFM Super Regional at the end of October had to cap certain events at 63 fencers. Under the old rules, these caps meant fencers missed opportunities for higher ratings. Under the new rules, these events can now offer the ratings that reflect their competitive quality. Actually one thing that didn’t change is the competitive quality of these events, because while the overall competitive field is reduced by 1 person from 64 to 63, the number of required rated fencers and their final placement didn’t change at all. And that’s a great thing!

This change will have some broad implications:

Increased accessibility: Regional or local tournaments that previously couldn’t accommodate the infrastructure demands of 64+ fencer fields can now offer higher-level ratings. This means more opportunities for fencers to earn ratings.

Tournament planning flexibility: Organizers can now design events around realistic strip availability rather than having to choose between offering lower ratings or declining entries after 63 registrations. I received so many emails about limiting the cap to 63 because of inability to have a good A4 event. Now I know we don’t jeopardize the rating prospects for such capped events.

What surprised me a bit is that this change happened relatively quietly. But on the other side, rather than overhauling the entire rating system or creating dramatic policy shifts, USA Fencing identified a specific structural barrier and made a precise adjustment to address it. I definitely prefer a quiet change that improves something than bombastic announcements for harming policies 🙂

This change definitely addresses tournament logistics and aligns with practical event management realities. For tournament directors, this change removes a long-standing constraint that forced difficult choices between field size and rating level. For fencers, it means more opportunities to compete for meaningful ratings.

The change from 64 to 63 competitors might seem minor in isolation, but it represents something more significant: a governing body that paid attention to how rules actually impact the athlete experience and made adjustments when barriers don’t serve competitive purposes. While I’ve had concerns about some restrictions in the past (and wrote about them excessively), this time I welcome this change.

For those of us involved in fencing development, this change is a reminder that sometimes the most impactful improvements are the quiet ones—the technical adjustments that remove obstacles and create opportunities without fanfare or controversy. Sometimes progress comes through revolutionary changes, but sometimes it comes through removing a single number that was quietly limiting opportunities across the country. In this case, 63 might just be better than 64.