American fencing grew tremendously in the 21st century, transforming from underdogs on the international scene to one of the most powerful countries in the world. Look at any level of competition, from Cadet World Cups to Olympic Games, and it’s unfathomable not to see an American fencer on the podium, oftentimes claiming the highest prize. This success, along with many other factors, led to an unprecedented increase in our sport’s popularity compared to the previous century. With such significant growth in skill, number of attendees and popularity, there’s a need to restructure how our national and regional competitions are conducted, particularly at the highest level of Senior NACs.

There are many complaints among fencers about Senior NACs. If I summarize them into a short list, I believe the following are the main points people talk about (though this list might not be comprehensive):

• Division 1 NACs are too big, especially in men’s epee and foil.
• The two-staged Division 1 is too hard (and unfair and even injury-prone) for those fencers who aren’t exempt from the first round. But from the perspective of NAC’s economy, splitting these events into two days is not financially feasible.
• There are not enough lower Division NACs (1A, 2, and 3), with Divisions 1A and 3 not even existing outside of Summer Nationals, limiting opportunities for many fencers to compete nationally.
• Division 1 NACs are often overcrowded because many less experienced but eligible fencers attend, lowering the level of the NAC, at least until the second round.

Many people in the national office, tournament committee, and coaches are discussing these issues, and many interesting and sometimes unorthodox ideas come from these discussions. Recent announcements from USA Fencing about proposed upcoming changes in Divisions (e.g., establishing an “Elite” Division) and point lists (e.g., combining all points, including local) are some of the work happening behind the scenes.

This post is my attempt to redefine Senior NACs. In it, I will challenge the whole concept and provide an idea of how they can be completely reorganized. This idea was born from many discussions with different people about these problems, combining ideas from several sources, which morphed into this proposal. I hope that a national dialogue will be established to rethink the future of NACs.

A New Approach to Divisions and the High-Level Overview of the Proposal

Current definitions of Division 1, 2, 3 are based on ratings, which in theory means the level of fencers in each Division. For example, Division 1 is composed of fencers with C and above ratings. Division 2 is C and below rating, and Division 3 is D and below rating. Division 1A is an Open Division, meaning every fencer of every rating could fence.

I suggest reconsidering what Divisions are. Let’s forget about A, B, C, D ratings. Instead, Division 1, 2, and 3 will be defined in the competition itself based on the actual fencing at this specific NAC.

Let’s give just one example of why a rating-based definition of Division is inaccurate. Think about a freshly minted 13-year-old C-rated fencer who miraculously succeeded in performing well in a local tournament and bumped her rating from U to C. Now she’s eligible for Division 1 NAC. However, for her, even Division 2 NAC is challenging; she really belongs in Division 3, but her rating made it impossible to fence in it. So if we want Division to adequately represent the actual level of fencers in it, a letter rating is not an accurate criterion.

The following change of concept for Division 1, 2, and 3 addresses all the issues above, and I hope it would serve as a springboard for in-depth discussion to take us to a new era of fencing.

At a high level, my proposal is as follows:

• The Senior NAC runs for two days. On Day 1, there is a qualifier for Day 2. Based on the results of Day 1, the competitive field is divided into 2 or 3 Divisions, based on the number of participants. If there are “many” people, then into 3 Divisions: Division 1 (about top ⅓ of the finishers), Division 2 (middle ⅓ of the finishers), and Division 3 (bottom ⅓ of the finishers). If fewer, then into 2 Divisions: Division 1 (about ½ top finishers) and Division 2 (about ½ bottom finishers).
• During Day 2, three competitions run at the same time – Division 1, 2, and 3, and each crowns its winners.
• Fencers earn Senior National points in each Division for each placement (similar to RJCC), but with different coefficients.
• Fencers must qualify regionally to compete on Day 1. The qualification is via Division 1A ROCs.
• Fencers pay for 2 days of competition, since they fence 2 events – the 1st Day Qualifier, and the 2nd Day Divisional Competition, which offsets the cost of running this competition over two days.

There are several aspects of the proposal to discuss:

• The size of the initial playing field
• Eligibility and Qualification
• Format of Day 1
• How Divisions are established
• Format of Day 2

Size of Senior NACs

The size of the initial playing field should be established at the beginning of the season based on the size of the venue. I talked about this in previous posts. Basically, the tournament committee can estimate what could be the size of the event based on the number of available strips in the venue. Both days are similar for the same weapon/gender.

Eligibility and Qualification

Everyone 13 and above is eligible for Senior NAC. However, to participate in Senior NAC, one must first qualify for it. The qualification for Senior NAC will be based on senior regional points (earned in Division 1A ROCs). The regional points should be rolling points and not reset at the beginning of the season. The number of qualifying spots will be different for each region and will be proportional to the size of the region. We can also add a region strength factor that can be discussed separately. Currently, let’s assume that the number of qualifying spots is proportional to the region size. A year into the implementation of this proposal, we can look into establishing a strength factor, so everybody starts on the same page and then the system calibrates itself.

A few people will be automatically qualified for the national senior event. For example, top 32 nationally ranked fencers.

The cut-off day for the regional qualification is the end of the regular fee registration deadline. Since the regional points aren’t reset at the beginning of the season but are rolling, this makes regional ROC scheduling less affecting the qualifier.

Format of Day 1 at Senior NAC

The day starts with pools. Top 32 out of the pool will be automatically qualified for day two. The rest fence (with or without cut, that’s less critical for this proposal) for the table of 128.

After the table of 128 is established, the first day finishes and three Divisions are established:

• Division 1 – composed of 32 exempts from round 1 plus 32 automatic qualifiers from round 1 plus top 128 from the winners of the last DE
• Division 2 – Top 50% of the remaining fencers based on the results of the first day
• Division 3 – Bottom 50% of the remaining fencers based on the results of the first day

Numbers above are for large events and can be lowered for smaller events.

Format of Day 2 at Senior NAC

Regular competition format – pools and DEs. There are 3 parallel NAC events that happen – Division 1, Division 2, and Division 3. Naturally, Division 1 would be composed of the strongest fencers in the country (most probably A’s and B’s), Division 2 will be composed of the less experienced fencers (most probably B’s, C’s, and D’s) and Division 3 will be composed of even less experienced fencers (most probably D’s, E’s, and U’s).

I suggest that seeding for Division 1 be based on the results of Day 1, similar to today’s two-staged Division 1 event in epee. However, seeding for Division 2 and 3 should be based on national points and rating, and not on the results of Day 1.

Benefits of This Proposal

• Every senior fencer (except the first 32 national exempts) has a chance to compete nationally for two days. This is a huge developmental value for the fencers, especially those who will eventually compete in Division 2 and 3 and those who need to fence a DE.
• There is always a chance to compete for a medal which is not less prestigious than current Division 2 and 3 medals.
• Based on the results of the 1st day, fencers are naturally divided into their respective Divisions based on their skills, making Divisions 2 and 3 truly reflect the level of competition.
• For Division 1, the format of the second day will be very close to the format of international competition. The competitive field is very strong as only the strongest fencers advanced to Division 1 on the first day.
• I also suggest not implementing the cut after the pools. Since Division 1 will have 192 fencers (32+32+128 from the Day 1 Divisional Qualifier), the top 64 seeded after the pools will get a BYE from the first round of the DE, and it will only be good for developmental reasons to have all 128 lower-seeded fencers fence 15-touch bouts.
• Since by design this consists of 2 events (Divisional Qualifier on Day 1 and Divisional Cup on Day 2), USA Fencing should charge every fencer (except top 32) for 2 events. So no money will be lost.
• For fencers who didn’t perform well on Day 1 (like some A’s, B’s, and C’s who came for Division 1 and didn’t make the cut) there is a chance to compete the next day, reset, get a medal, new rating, and even national points (which I will discuss later).

Obviously, this is great from a developmental perspective:

• For Division 1 fencers, it is important to compete well and qualify for Division 1 on the first day. The second day consists of a very strong competitive field (strongest at this moment in the country) and closely approximates international events.
• For Division 2 and 3 fencers, there are many more NACs, which is a great thing in itself.
• To qualify for the NAC, fencers must perform well at the regional level, which pushes everybody up.

Importance of Regional Events

A very big emphasis is put on regional events, as they become the main qualifying events for participation in senior events at the national level. This change provides additional motivation and competitive training opportunities for fencers at all levels.

Currently, many top regional fencers who have senior national points often skip regional events. However, their presence in regional events is crucial. Fencing against these top competitors helps develop the skills of other fencers in the region.

In the next part of this proposal, we’ll dive deeper into how these changes affect the structure of Senior Regional and National Points, further emphasizing the crucial role of regional events.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll explore these concepts in greater detail and discuss their implications for the future of American fencing.

Photo: Serge Timacheff/USA Fencing