nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 5, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -6
Augie, I don't think schlager's saying you are referring to those clubs. I think it was more along the lines of "this is a can of worms" you may be opening by invoking that particular rule.
BTW, I looked at that list on the Section page and sought out my own records.
I noticed that none of our "secondary clubs" are showing. The USFA's 10-man rule does not stipulate a club must have 10 USFA members who show the club as their PRIMARY club.
One cannot see how many folks belong to what clubs as their secondary club... or even IF they have a secondary club. If we try to learn how many fencers list ANY club, including Young Elites, as their secondary club, this list is of no use.
|
|
Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Jun 5, 2008 22:20:21 GMT -6
I have had my own share of issues with this 10-member rule as well. FCUH is a member of SWIFA and the USFA. Currently we have ~7 USFA members, and I don't see that number growing. However, if this issue of enforcing the 10-member rule was brought up, and the USFA strips away membership from the clubs not meeting the criteria, FCUH will loose it's core, and soon after the club will die.
This is a topic I believe should be crushed before it goes any further.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Jun 5, 2008 23:02:30 GMT -6
I believe the reason for the complaint about SWIFA occurring on the same weekend as the Oz is not so much as pulling away students as potential competitors, as it is about pulling away the people that run, referee, sell, etc as potential competitors. Actually, that argument holds even less water, Suzanne. SWIFA runs a very lean operation. We usually have only six paid referees. The kids from the sponsoring club generally run the administrative work. Surely, having a dozen people working a SWIFA competition had no effect on the Oz.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jun 6, 2008 7:04:51 GMT -6
Hmm... two equally interesting parallel topics forming from one thread.
As to the SWIFA/SSCC issue:
I recall only two of the four SWIFA tournaments this season fell opposite SSCC tournaments. I do not recall this happening all that often before now. I would suspect long term lack of support of the Oz by other divisions' fencers in general played more of a role in their decision not to participate.
I am sure those two dates where SWIFA scheduled opposite SSCCs became hot-button issues for those who work so hard to make the SSCCs something special, but I doubt it killed the Oklahoma Division's plans to participate in the SSCC all by itself.
As to August Skopik's challenge to the YEH having the Gulf Coast SSCC:
I can tell from past posts that one of schlager7's hot-button issues is support of smaller clubs, especially at colleges or those in communities off by themselves. This is laudable. I do not think August Skopik means any injury to groups like Spindletop and BFE.
I recognize, however, that in bringing up several (it seems to me) valid points in making his case against YEH holding an SSCC, he could bring up a rule that catches the attention of others. Feelings run high in the Gulf Coast Division over a perceived shortage of available dates for tournaments (although I feel schlager7 gave the lie to that claim in another thread). I can understand a fear that someone might use such a rule to disenfranchise enough small fry to free up the calendar. (recall that most of the GCD's clubs are small).
I think most clubs (the small ones) are content to let the big clubs fight it out amongst themselves, as long as they don't catch everyone else up in their war.
One final point on the challenge. Augie makes some excellent points, but is it a worthwhile fight? It has already been posted that any ban on Katy Blades hosting an SSCC has been since voided. The club is back on the rotation for SSCCs. Might patience for the right opening be a better game plan than yet more conflict in the division?
Personally, I like the idea of clubs bidding for SSCCs direct to the Section. Reduces local conflicts over the 3 rotated events to divisionals and JO qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 6, 2008 8:27:39 GMT -6
I'm afraid fox has me. I'll plead guilty as charged on that particular sensitivity issue.
As to the local SSCC, Augie, Louise, Mauro and Andrey can fight over that issue. I want no part of hosting such an event. Indeed, I now strongly urge the clubs I have a membership in to avoid hosting SSCCs, and qualifiers like the plague that they are.
I believe in the SSCC ideal.
I believe the SSCC serves a vital function and encourage the fencers at the clubs I belong to to compete in them.
I encourage the referees I know to assist if called upon.
I strongly encourage the clubs I belong to (and those that I do not belong to but who give me credence) to never be the LOC...
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 6, 2008 8:50:05 GMT -6
The SWIFA conflict may have been a big deal this season, but it can't be that big an issue overall. There are usually 5 SSCCs per season and 4 SWIFAs. They might, on occasion, overlap, but the likelihood of it happening terribly often, season after season, looks like pretty long odds.
Schlager7, I hear you, my brother. The reward is not worth the aggravation.
Augie makes a good arguement on YEH. I would really like to hear from Marty Wysocki. If he tells us the YEH are an active, distinct, unique organization and not just another alias for BCFA, I'll accept that.
|
|
|
Post by D on Jun 6, 2008 11:03:05 GMT -6
I'm afraid fox has me. I'll plead guilty as charged on that particular sensitivity issue. As to the local SSCC, Augie, Louise, Mauro and Andrey can fight over that issue. I want no part of hosting such an event. Indeed, I now strongly urge the clubs I have a membership in to avoid hosting SSCCs, and qualifiers like the plague that they are. I strongly encourage the clubs I belong to (and those that I do not belong to but who give me credence) to never be the LOC... Im not sure what your reasons are here, but i know why Oscar and the Texas State people don't want the Pouj or the Bobcat to ever be an SSCC.
I wonder if our reasons are the same?
Im not really sure about the past, but have SSCC events increased? Or have they just stopped making traditional tournaments apart of the SSCC (which would almost double the amount of tournaments to avoid if its the case)
It seems as if these clashes are harder to avoid than before. (it could just be that i never paid attention before)
I know that having the Longhorn NOT be an SSCC event means that there is an extra tournament in south texas around the same time period in which you HAVE to avoid. ("The Bobcat" usually at the middle or end of September and the Longhorn usually at the end of October.) But all this stuff going on in September has made the Bobcat have to push back to the first weekend in October.
I wonder if that is the case in other areas? Are there more tournaments to avoid because they arnt combined with other tournaments?
|
|
Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Jun 6, 2008 14:05:56 GMT -6
I agree with schlager7 100%. FCUH Will have no part in hosting SSCCs, JO Quals, or Div Quals. We will however gladly help or participate when needed.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jun 6, 2008 15:49:19 GMT -6
Katy Blades still is not part of the SSCC rotation. It was denied the last time it was assigned the tournament by the division by the SSCC. It has never received any official notification that it was removed from this ban, so assumptions should not be made. The same things were said before the last denial by David Sierra to me personally in Dallas when he was in a position of responsibility.
We are setting a precedent again. If we break the rules, then what will prevent them from being broken again? Why allow these rules to be broken when other rules are not? Why deny some tournaments and not these?
The issue with the Young Elites is that it takes a weekend that can be utilized by the clubs. The bigger issue is that it is a rule. I get pounded all the time about the rules. What is different here? If it is a stupid rule then why can we hold an E and under and not let a Div I tournanment be held somewhere else the same weekend, particularly if NONE of the referees or officials will be used that are needed for that tournament?
I was a small club 4 years ago when this started, and everyone that made the decision thought I would go away. Now my club is getting bigger than I imagined and the growth curve is not in sight.
I am also a businessman, and what it takes to grow my clubs I will do. I don't consider the other clubs competitors, but assets. I want them bigger so my fencers have more competitors. I want more clubs. I am in more of a postion like Andrey and Mauro where people that want to fence are coming to me. I don't recruit other fencers, but it is starting to happen. There are not many places where you can regularly get 20 bouts against different fencers on a given practice night.
The leadership will need to make a ruling, and I will make my decisions for next season based upone that ruling.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jun 6, 2008 15:59:17 GMT -6
I agree with schlager7 100%. FCUH Will have no part in hosting SSCCs, JO Quals, or Div Quals. We will however gladly help or participate when needed. The only reason I wanted to hold divisionals is that I did not want it held another time in an UNSAFE facility. I will do everything in my power to protect the USFA against itself in this manner. I have been told by someone that has documentation that if it is held there again and they get hurt they are suing. I have personally been hurt on the floor. I had two lady fencers suffer the same knee injury at the last JO qualifiers, (the doctors confirmed the type of injury and the cause). There was a budding saber fencer, David Chao (sp?), that hurt his knee the same way at the same tournament. Has anyone seen him? I have others injured in a similar manner in previous events there. We discussed the injury issue before the tournament, and the LOC decided that it was not the floor that caused any of the injuries, or there was not enough documentation. I would stand on the floor, and when my fencers lunged and hit me I would slide several inches because of the floor. It is unsafe, and the only thing the USFA insurance does not protect the officers from is negligence in a lawsuit. If the GCD is sued then we all suffer. That is why I chose divisionals. I could not take the risk of getting hurt before Dallas Nationals.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 6, 2008 17:22:23 GMT -6
There was a budding saber fencer, David Chao (sp?), that hurt his knee the same way at the same tournament. Has anyone seen him? I have others injured in a similar manner in previous events there. Interesting. I responded to Mr. Chao at the time he slipped. With him were colleagues and team-mates and some parents. Mr. Chao told me he faulted his well-worn shoes and showed me the soles. They were, in fact, pretty worn. There were areas with no tread. I have fenced with similarly well-worn "favorite" shoes with like results. As to D's query... I think there are more tournaments in Texas now. I do not know Oscar's or Texas State's reasons, but knowing Oscar Barrera, I a sure they are sound reasons. I was told once that one point of SSCC-level tournaments in each division was to "build up" a tournament to a high-calibre. Events in South Texas like the Bobcat and Pouj do not require the cache' of being an SSCC tournament. They are sufficiently prestigious on their own merits. Frankly, if the Longhorn draws the same talent without being an SSCC, then maybe it is time another event should take its turn. and in response to Jett... FCUH does not need an SSCC event. The Cougar Call to Arms has become a seriously intense event all on its own. Excellent work, there.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 6, 2008 17:35:46 GMT -6
If the GCD is sued then we all suffer. That is why I chose divisionals. Such devotion to the cause.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 6, 2008 17:48:49 GMT -6
Well, drat! I should have checked my email first when I got home as opposed to going to the forum first. (At this point I should add that I previously took the liberty of contacting Marty Wysocki to get some info straight from the horse's mouth.)
Since my last post I found the following email response from Marty Wysocki. Nemo, this addresses one of your earlier posts...
============================================
I really don't want to get involved in the discussion but please feel free to pass this onto those involved, and please post it on the website.
1) we are still active and no we have not listed members because we are working with kids in the ghetto who are no where near ready for competition.
2) the USFA suggested we join the USFA for insurance purposes for our coach, and add the kids when they are ready for competition.
3) we do pay our dues and
4) I am a bit taken back that Augie (nor anyone did not call) to discuss the question directly with us. This is the kind of stuff that goes on the division that has caused us to not be involved with the division competitions. Our purpose is working with 25 kids and helping them...period.
5) Our coach has medaled in a world cup, is a local college student and used to fence sabre in these here parts (now focusing on school alone-he has actually brought in some of former world cup team mates ocassionally to work with kids). Greetings to all.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 6, 2008 18:21:02 GMT -6
Excuse me!?!? Here we are have a perfectly civil conversation, wildly speculating about a local fencing organization and you go and ask their official USFA contact? What the hell were you thinking? ? Have you gone completely mad?
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jun 6, 2008 18:37:13 GMT -6
If the GCD is sued then we all suffer. That is why I chose divisionals. Such devotion to the cause. Not really. I just don't want any more of my students hurt. I just gave a lesson to a 14 year old girl that still is recovering from that injury at JO qualifiers. I am fiercely protective of my fencers, and myself. I was at a Pasadena ISD school board meeting 3 or 4 years ago, and the issue of the gyms came up then. They had also found rats in the Clear Lake ISD boys gym in the standing water. Because of funding cuts and the Robin Hood bill, they could only address the rat situation. What would happen to the South Houston high school program if the complaint went to the school board? I met those people, and they did not have a lot of patience for that kind of stuff. Out with the program. As far as Marty's program, it is great. Unfortunately, the rules are you have to have 10 USFA members. I argued against the rule. The USFA officers voted for it.The USFA officers have to change it and have the membership vote on it. It should be done in the Fall meeting. When you set restrictive rules it hurts someone. Change it. John can't, NEMO can't, Davis can't, I can't. The officers have to.
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Jun 6, 2008 20:14:21 GMT -6
My hat goes out to Marty and the YEH coach! Really, way to go!
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 6, 2008 22:14:00 GMT -6
I was at a Pasadena ISD school board meeting 3 or 4 years ago, and the issue of the gyms came up then. They had also found rats in the Clear Lake ISD boys gym in the standing water. Okay, I live down here and that makes no sense. It is, in fact, virtually meaningless. First of all, the correct name of one of those districts is The Clear CREEK Independent School District. The Pasadena Independent School District is a neighboring, yet completely separate and distinct school district. I will start by presuming you attended a COMBINED meeting of Pasadena ISD and Clear CREEK ISD? Or did Pasadena ISD send spies down into a rival ISD to get some dirt? Or are these unrelated events being inadvertently run together by unfortunate phrasing? THE Clear Lake ISD boys gym? I don't even know what that might mean. It is a pretty big district. Does this mean Clear Lake HS, Clear Creek HS, Clear Brook HS, Clear Springs HS, Clear Path Alternative School, Clear Horizons Early College High School, one of the intermediates, elementaries? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it is exactly these types of vague, sweeping statements that can lead to serious conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jun 6, 2008 22:52:57 GMT -6
Trying to catch up, now. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I err.
There are only 4 SSCCs set for 2008-2009 (STX, NTX, ALM & GC).
The Oklahoma Division is not hosting an SSCC because fencers from the other divisions do not (or have not been) attending.
The traditional Oklahoma SSCC, the Oz Parsons Memorial may be held anyway, just not as an SSCC.
SWIFAs (are/are not) a major part of the problem.
Non-USFA collegiate fencing tournaments (do/do not) drain talent from high level regional events.
Only 4 SSCCs are not desirable.
A 5th SSCC is up for bid. Since Border TX, Louisiana & Oklahoma are not participating (hence only 4 SSCCs) presumably one division gets two SSCCs in 08/09.
Young Elites is hosting the Gulf Coast SSCC. It (is/is not) a legit club.
Mr. Skopik feels certain clubs (ones with no USFA members or bad floors) should not host qualifiers or SSCCs.
Katy Blades will host the GC divisional qualifiers because the last club to host the GC JO qualifiers used a place felt to be unsafe.
Don't fence with worn out shoes.
Louise Lepie is the Professor Moriarty of the Gulf Coast Division.
Pasadena ISD can not afford to pay for Clear Creek ISD's flooded gym.
How am I doing?
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 6, 2008 22:58:16 GMT -6
The only reason I wanted to hold divisionals is that I did not want it held another time in an UNSAFE facility. I will do everything in my power to protect the USFA against itself in this manner. So, just where will you be holding the divisionals next season?
|
|
kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Jun 6, 2008 22:59:11 GMT -6
You forgot the partridge in the pear tree.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jun 6, 2008 23:08:43 GMT -6
You forgot the partridge in the pear tree. d**n! Knew I'd miss something!
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 6, 2008 23:26:16 GMT -6
As far as Marty's program, it is great. Unfortunately, the rules are you have to have 10 USFA members. I argued against the rule. The USFA officers voted for it.The USFA officers have to change it and have the membership vote on it. It should be done in the Fall meeting. When you set restrictive rules it hurts someone. Change it. John can't, NEMO can't, Davis can't, I can't. The officers have to. Actually, I sought out those rules. For the Gulf Coast Division, under Allotment of Sanctioned Competitions to Member Clubs it merely says: In order to be considered a qualified member club, the club must have been a member of the USFA for a minimum of six months of the previous season, and must have been a member of the USFA for six weeks before the requested competition date. In addition, the club must remain a member of the USFA prior to and during its allocated competitions, in order for the competitions to be USFA sanctioned.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jun 8, 2008 8:25:50 GMT -6
Just to be pig-headed and drag us back on topic, I see the SW Section now also shows the date for the Gulf Coast event. The following dates have been designated for 2008-2009 SSCC tournaments: September 20/21, 2008 – South Texas – Austin Fencers Club November 1/2, 2008– North Texas – Fencing Institute of Texas January 10/11, 2009 – Gulf Coast – Young Elites of Houston February 21/22, 2009 – Ark-La-Miss – Rose Condon Committee
So the SSCC schedule is now complete up to the 5th event to be put out for bid.
Perhaps one of the bones of contention on this thread can be laid to rest if the Katy Blades club makes a bid for the 5th SSCC. Perhaps someone with the SSCC could tell us if any bids have come in, yet.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Jun 8, 2008 9:08:01 GMT -6
I am not aware of any bids having been received yet. I am aware of two organizations that are preparing bids. If Katy Blades were to prepare and submit a bid, it would receive the same attention and consideration as all the other bids.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 11, 2008 7:11:02 GMT -6
I am not aware of any bids having been received yet. I am aware of two organizations that are preparing bids. If Katy Blades were to prepare and submit a bid, it would receive the same attention and consideration as all the other bids. There's your opening, Augie.
|
|