|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 10, 2012 10:05:52 GMT -6
So, lets put together a practice tournament, charge $40 to fence one event, have none of the top fencers attend, and hold it once a month. The numbers will continue to decrease. I felt Jett made several good points. His summation at the end (quoted above) was particularly well put. Before the 1990s, most of the fencing in our division was done by the colleges. From the 1960s through the 1980s there were less than five active non-collegiate fencing clubs in the Gulf Coast Division in any given year. The early and mid 1990s saw the beginning of BCFA, Clear Lake, Salle Mauro, South Houston. UH, Rice and A&M were still in the mix. Add Spindletop in Beaumont (still holding tournaments and sending fencers here for the same). The late 1990s and early 2000s saw the numbers increase: Knights of Trapani, Westchester (now gone), Alliance, Katy Blades, Brazosport, the Woodlands, and the University of St. Thomas. In the 1990s most tournaments remained relatively small (not all, the Van Buskirk is one obvious exception) and many clubs held no or few tournaments at first. Our problem today is that we are holding on to paradigms that worked well in the 1980s and 1990s but are not well-suited to the current conditions in our division. Once upon a time tournaments were not that common, thus well-worth clearing your calendar and driving long distances. The referees were rarely rated. Events were often self-refereed by the fencers. The referees need not be paid. Prizes were often (but NOT exclusively) simple medals. I would not confuse this state of affairs with a concious decision on the tournament organizers' parts. It was simply all they had available to work from. It did, however, have the effect of keeping costs low so that the biggest portion of competitors fees represented profit to the host club. The division grew. The number of clubs inceased. Clubs seem to almost inevitably turn to holding their own tournaments. It is natural. It gives their fencers a chance to compete without driving across town (or Texas!). So now the number of tournaments increases. For a time, the division was allowing (even encouraging, for a time) the theory of letting everyone hold as many tournaments as they wish and let the free market sort it out. Then smaller clubs began to protest that every time they tried to hold a tournament, often outside the core of population density in Houston, attendance was meager because a big club with 100 fencers held a tournament the same weekend. Naturally most of the fencers at the big club chose to fence closer to home rather than drive a great distance to what would be a smaller event. This, more than any other reason, is what drove the creation of granting one exclusive weekend per year to each USFA member club in the division. We are usually looking at about a dozen clubs or less each year. That still leaves some 40 weekends available. Those weekends fill. The old exclusive weekend paradigm also, in my opinion, no longer works. Yes, Brazosport may have an exclusive this weekend, but if I don't like the idea of the drive, I can just blow it off this weekend and fence somewhere nearer to me in Houston on the next weekend. Tournaments (in the general sense) are a dime a dozen. They have ceased to become "special." Attendance drops. Costs also go up. Venues are mosre exprensive and harder to get. There are no more dry tournaments. Electronic scoring devices are required. With the coming of a demand for dedicated referees and the end of self-refereed bouts, referees are rarely free. (Who wants to get up on their day off, drive across town or Texas, generally not get to fence, and take the odd arguement/abuse of fencers, coaches and/or parents for free?) The old models that made the odd tournament a "cash cow" for a club just do not work today, even though that perception still seems to drive decision-making at many clubs. I think that one must create an entirely different model, or set of models, to increase attendance at tournaments.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Feb 10, 2012 12:12:14 GMT -6
Are you suggesting more clubs holder fewer tournaments? If so, what is your club (Clear Lake) planning to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Feb 10, 2012 12:18:03 GMT -6
Yes, Brazosport may have an exclusive this weekend, but if I don't like the idea of the drive, I can just blow it off this weekend and fence somewhere nearer to me in Houston on the next weekend. Actually, I do hear some grousing in the North Texas Division about how hard it is to draw fencers from Houston to our local events.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 10, 2012 17:05:56 GMT -6
Jett had some good points: 1. Cost - the GCD policy of requiring directors, observers, etc and paying has to be paid for by someone. This is a directive in hosting a tournament, and one of the results of this policy. We could go back to self-directing, but you still have a pay an observer and that fee must be passed on. This is where policies create results. So what, exactly, are you saying? The syntax, frankly, baffles me. Are you saying the Gulf Coast Division required rated referees for all of its tournaments(?)... which drives up the cost of the tournament... and every tournament is required to have an FOC observer? We need to maintain historical accuracy if we are going to correctly address this problem. I actually sent a parent and fencers to the last GCD tournament committee meeting that discussed this because I had gotten to the point where it was not worth my time. This was a requirement in 2007 to 2009 in the GCD tournament meetings held by Rachel El-Saleh. The requirement was for a GCD tournament to be rated by the division it required rated directors and have a paid official observer that had to be a member of a different club for this to be a USFA tournament. I have checks that were cashed to Rachel and others and her only function was to measure my strips and talk about how having too many tournaments was a bad idea, (while 2,000 people saw fencing, some for the first time). They did not need to be an FOC observer, but every club was supposed to provide three names that could be used that was experienced in running tournaments. The rule was they could not referee or fence to be an observer. This practice is still in place, because Chris Williams was the "observer" for the recent Alliance tournament held several weeks ago. I don't think all clubs had to stick with these rules, although I was often Mauro's observer and Andrey's when I was not fencing because we knew that these costs just got passed on to fencers and could waive them in that case. I can't tell you if this is a requirement this year, because I got burned so often for so long that I don't trust the system. I do know that this year the first several tournaments were not going to be rated by the GCD because of similar infractions. I know that Brandon Merz earned his B in Sugarland and nothing happened for a long time because of some infraction that Manny was supposed to have committed. The only people hurt in these situations were the fencers, and the fencers/parents don't understand and it leads to bad feelings.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 10, 2012 17:20:12 GMT -6
Are you saying the Gulf Coast Division required rated referees for all of its tournaments(?)... which drives up the cost of the tournament... and every tournament is required to have an FOC observer? In a word, no. The Gulf Coast Division does not require FOC ranked referees for any tournaments. USA Fencing requires one level five (AFAIK in any weapon) referee at either/both qualifiers the division holds (for JOs and for Nationals). There are no rules requiring FOC "observers" at any tournaments. That said, if one is running an open tournament and seeking to entice competitors with higher rankings to compete, it certainly does not hurt to have higher ranked FOC referees in your cadre. I would also add, and this is purely my personal belief, that if you are hiring referees with FOC rankings who hope to improve those rankings, it certainly is to your advantage to have an FOC observer. It is not, however, a requirement. Take it for what it is worth, but that does come from the Vice Chair of the Gulf Coast Division. I want to be clear that these were the requirements spoken by Rachel at the GCD tournament meeting. She was the tournament chair, and could nix any rating or sanction and did often.John is accurate that FOC rated directors were not required, paid USFA rated directors were. You could not hold a learning tournament that held the cost down if you self-directed. It was against the rules. Also, if you used a director not from her list, (or her), she was very upset even if you were running a learning tournament and it was pools. You could lose your sanctions for this, although it would be communicated you lost them for some other reason. This was often overheard at tournaments at Katy Mills when I was using young fencers, (but often much better directors than those presented to me), as the referee cadre. We never had a issue with the South Texas fencers complaining about our referees. There were also rules to pay the observers that were implemented and enforced. I have checks that I wrote for that purpose. They could not be fencers or referees or armorers, and had to be from a different club. When you have the number of parents from all clubs that asked about the ratings and why they had not received them, you had to investigate to provide an answer.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 10, 2012 17:52:33 GMT -6
So, lets put together a practice tournament, charge $40 to fence one event, have none of the top fencers attend, and hold it once a month. The numbers will continue to decrease. I felt Jett made several good points. His summation at the end (quoted above) was particularly well put. Before the 1990s, most of the fencing in our division was done by the colleges. From the 1960s through the 1980s there were less than five active non-collegiate fencing clubs in the Gulf Coast Division in any given year. The early and mid 1990s saw the beginning of BCFA, Clear Lake, Salle Mauro, South Houston. UH, Rice and A&M were still in the mix. Add Spindletop in Beaumont (still holding tournaments and sending fencers here for the same). The late 1990s and early 2000s saw the numbers increase: Knights of Trapani, Westchester (now gone), Alliance, Katy Blades, Brazosport, the Woodlands, and the University of St. Thomas. In the 1990s most tournaments remained relatively small (not all, the Van Buskirk is one obvious exception) and many clubs held no or few tournaments at first. Our problem today is that we are holding on to paradigms that worked well in the 1980s and 1990s but are not well-suited to the current conditions in our division. Once upon a time tournaments were not that common, thus well-worth clearing your calendar and driving long distances. The referees were rarely rated. Events were often self-refereed by the fencers. The referees need not be paid. Prizes were often (but NOT exclusively) simple medals. I would not confuse this state of affairs with a concious decision on the tournament organizers' parts. It was simply all they had available to work from. It did, however, have the effect of keeping costs low so that the biggest portion of competitors fees represented profit to the host club. The division grew. The number of clubs inceased. Clubs seem to almost inevitably turn to holding their own tournaments. It is natural. It gives their fencers a chance to compete without driving across town (or Texas!). So now the number of tournaments increases. For a time, the division was allowing (even encouraging, for a time) the theory of letting everyone hold as many tournaments as they wish and let the free market sort it out. Then smaller clubs began to protest that every time they tried to hold a tournament, often outside the core of population density in Houston, attendance was meager because a big club with 100 fencers held a tournament the same weekend. Naturally most of the fencers at the big club chose to fence closer to home rather than drive a great distance to what would be a smaller event. This, more than any other reason, is what drove the creation of granting one exclusive weekend per year to each USFA member club in the division. We are usually looking at about a dozen clubs or less each year. That still leaves some 40 weekends available. Those weekends fill. The old exclusive weekend paradigm also, in my opinion, no longer works. Yes, Brazosport may have an exclusive this weekend, but if I don't like the idea of the drive, I can just blow it off this weekend and fence somewhere nearer to me in Houston on the next weekend. Tournaments (in the general sense) are a dime a dozen. They have ceased to become "special." Attendance drops. Costs also go up. Venues are mosre exprensive and harder to get. There are no more dry tournaments. Electronic scoring devices are required. With the coming of a demand for dedicated referees and the end of self-refereed bouts, referees are rarely free. (Who wants to get up on their day off, drive across town or Texas, generally not get to fence, and take the odd arguement/abuse of fencers, coaches and/or parents for free?) The old models that made the odd tournament a "cash cow" for a club just do not work today, even though that perception still seems to drive decision-making at many clubs. I think that one must create an entirely different model, or set of models, to increase attendance at tournaments. I was actually involved in fencing in the GCD in the late 1980s, so I can give a first-hand answer to many of these points.Many of the clubs were collegiate clubs but many of the fencers were post-collegiate. Rice's club meetings on Wednesday included Tracey and Bob Hurley, Slavek, Tim Glass, myself, John Wahren, Dave Adams, Dwayne Blakeley, etc. and we were all past college. Dave, John and I were the youngest in the group. Pouj Jr. was one of the pioneers in making running a club a full time profession. Holding tournaments was not a college first event. We solicited the schools for the ability to hold them there, and they were USFA first tournaments. We, (actually I in a lot of cases), asked colleges such as Rice, TAMU, St. Thomas, UH, etc. for dates and fit our schedule around it. Oscar B. and I implemented similar strategies and it worked. The Van Buskirk was actually run by the division, and while Rice hosted it the division ran it. I personally received the entries for the Van Buskirk, (remember mailing them in Jon Lusby?), and ran initial seedings in my apartment in Houston. Tournaments were requested by the division in such locations as Victoria and Beaumont in 1985, (Kirby Rassenfoss came up with the tournament name Spindletop at a Chili's and I don't think they had even named the club yet). Prizes were not always medals, (or often). I have a large number of beer mugs, figurines, pictures of fencers, etc. that we gave as trophies. When I say large number it would be above 50 without taking the time to count. Medals in the GCD became very uncommon by the late 1980s. I have the first pen set from the Heavy Metal from this time period. We had two electric scoring sets in 1985 when I took over the division, and that was for the entire division. Running tournaments required coordination and club participation. I remember many early tournaments where I had 12 working strips and hoping a college student would bring the club's two strips and they forgot. Electric strips must of become a state of disrepair between 1993 and 2001 because when I came back and held an office in the GCD we no longer owned any electrical equipment as a division. When I left the GCD held between 12 - 14 strips depending upon the reel conditions. There were many large tournaments regionally. No one mentions The Bragging Rights Tournament in Hearne, TX, The Duel at Dallas, The Texas State Championships, The Texas Collegiate Championships (often 50+ per event), the large epee tournament in San Antonio each year, the large tournament in New Orleans during Mardi Gras each year. Each of these would have number rival the Pouj in the 1980s. There was the Knights of Columbus tournament in Beaumont also. We keep thinking that we have a limited number of people that will fence and these are the only people that will. That is the paradigm that must change. Why must there be 6,000+ youth in soccer/baseball/football/cheering every weekend within 10 miles from my house and we can't attract 60 of these youth in fencing. That is 1%. That is not an unrealistic number. We must do things that will attract these parents, who "want something for their kids every weekend, and they don't care what," Bob Hurley. If fencing does not offer it, and it does not around here, then the parents will find something that does. I had a model that worked and was multiplying, but it kept running into issues with the GCD. I have since turned these same skills into a different successful venture.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 10, 2012 23:06:49 GMT -6
As with others here, I'm not in the Gulf Coast Division so you will have to help me here. What are the policies in your division that contribute to low attendance at tournaments?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 10, 2012 23:42:55 GMT -6
I want to be clear that these were the requirements spoken by Rachel at the GCD tournament meeting. She was the tournament chair, and could nix any rating or sanction and did often.John is accurate that FOC rated directors were not required, paid USFA rated directors were. You could not hold a learning tournament that held the cost down if you self-directed. It was against the rules. Also, if you used a director not from her list, (or her), she was very upset even if you were running a learning tournament and it was pools. You could lose your sanctions for this, although it would be communicated you lost them for some other reason. This was often overheard at tournaments at Katy Mills when I was using young fencers, (but often much better directors than those presented to me), as the referee cadre. We never had a issue with the South Texas fencers complaining about our referees. There were also rules to pay the observers that were implemented and enforced. I have checks that I wrote for that purpose. They could not be fencers or referees or armorers, and had to be from a different club. I am sorry. This is simply incorrect. As an organizing member of two clubs in this division I have personally attended every tournament scheduling meeting since we began holding them. This is fundamentally inaccurate. No club is required to pay for referees or have rated ones. Nor have they ever. Clubs which hold qualifying competitions are required by our national governing body to have one FOC Level 5 referee present. That is a national rule. By "observer" you apparently mean a tournament committee representative (i.e. someone not from your club, not fencing at the tournament, and reasonably familiar enough with the rules to be able to report back with a clear conscience that everything was above board at your tournament). Every tournament in our division that wishes to offer the opportunity to improve rankings must have such a person present. If a tournament organizer cannot be bothered to acquire a non-clubmember to referee/observe on their own behalf, or is incapable of doing so, the division previously arranged to provide such an observer. Their pay was to be equal to what you are paying your referees. If that is free, well equal means equal. Not surprisingly, this is why most of us ask a non-clubmember we are hiring (whatever that might mean) to referee to serve in that capacity. I just don't see the issue. This is just not that hard or onerous. Heck, I was a free referee/TC rep at one of your tournaments at Katy Mills Mall.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 11, 2012 0:12:02 GMT -6
I am sorry. This is simply incorrect. As an organizing member of two clubs in this division I have personally attended every tournament scheduling meeting since we began holding them. This is fundamentally inaccurate. No club is required to pay for referees or have rated ones. Nor have they ever. Clubs which hold qualifying competitions are required by our national governing body to have one FOC Level 5 referee present. That is a national rule. By "observer" you apparently mean a tournament committee representative (i.e. someone not from your club, not fencing at the tournament, and reasonably familiar enough with the rules to be able to report back with a clear conscience that everything was above board at your tournament). Every tournament in our division that wishes to offer the opportunity to improve rankings must have such a person present. If a tournament organizer cannot be bothered to acquire a non-clubmember to referee/observe on their own behalf, or is incapable of doing so, the division previously arranged to provide such an observer. Their pay was to be equal to what you are paying your referees. If that is free, well equal means equal. Not surprisingly, this is why most of us ask a non-clubmember we are hiring (whatever that might mean) to referee to serve in that capacity. I just don't see the issue. This is just not that hard or onerous. Heck, I was a free referee/TC rep at one of your tournaments at Katy Mills Mall. John, that is BS. You must not have been in the meeting or paying attention when Rachel stated the fee schedule, $50 - $80 per referee. The tournament observer was to be paid the same. You did donate your referee fees for a tournament, and I used those fees to sponsor a family that could not send their fencer to nationals. For that I thank you, ( and they would have to if you had wanted the credit that you did not). You did not attend many of the tournaments at Katy Blades. You also may have not know what happens after the tournament results are mailed in and people ask where are my ratings? You also were not supposed to use a referee or someone that served in any official capacity. It just must not have been enforced at your tournaments. It has been enforced at other club's. This was an explicit instruction at my last GCD tournament meeting. I sent two adult fencers and a parent to the next one. Rachel came up at the Fete De Lune and said that these representatives had no clue. I really have no dog in this fight. This is yours. I can fence at San Marcos all I want or Dallas. Alliance has great training tournaments also, 3 As per pool and additional high-rated fencers. You are just seeing the results of policies and will see further decline unless a concerted effort is to change. Prove me wrong by growing Div. II and III events. Then you will see large opens two seasons after that.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 11, 2012 11:44:44 GMT -6
Alliance has great training tournaments also, 3 As per pool and additional high-rated fencers. You are just seeing the results of policies and will see further decline unless a concerted effort is to change. If Alliance can have "great training tournaments" would it not be possible to copy their model? All discussion of policies notwithstanding, I was going to try to look at some major tournaments in North Texas and post their numbers comparing them to the Gulf Coast and South Texas tournaments thus far. The Gold Blade Open has only been around a few years. The Wang Memorial is a composite SYC & ROC so I don't know if that adds in more factors than we have been allowing here. I looked at the Lone Star Open but its format has varied so widely it seemed unlikely one could piece together a meaningful pattern. Suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by sasha on Feb 11, 2012 11:48:39 GMT -6
I would suggest either the DeGall or the St. Mark's Open. While neither is generally huge, they generate respectable numbers and may determine if North Texas follows the pattern (which I fear it may).
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 11, 2012 23:18:26 GMT -6
...The Texas Collegiate Championships (often 50+ per event)... That was a good one. Attachments:
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 11, 2012 23:42:08 GMT -6
I agree in large part with what Augie says here, in its general tone if not in all the niggling details. Policies do indeed set the stage for success or failure. We have some bad policies. It is more or less impossible to run a cheap USFA event once a month, even if you want to. That's not good.
If you're interested in how policies and perception affect growth and a sport's development, I have a great movie for you to watch: Hell on Wheels, 2007, available streaming on Netflix. It's about the early days of Flat Track Roller Derby in Austin. Very, very educational. FTRD is now recruiting very successfully in exactly the demographic, post college age adults, who are walking away from the USFA in droves, it's arguably the fastest growing sport in the world.
I think fencing is stuck between modes. The old mode was to fence locally. The reason all the great tournaments Augie reeled off were possible (you forgot the Bullit Lowrey, by the way) was because there was no such thing as a NAC. No such thing as flying to hell and gone to fence a bunch of other C and under fencers, or D and under fencers. No national circuit. We had Summer Nationals in July, that was it. If you qualified and you could scrape the money together you went, but that was hardly the reason you fenced. You fenced local stuff, local stuff was important. Beating SMU for the team trophy in the above picture was the highlight of our year at NTSU, not going to Chicago and winning a team epee DE, then losing our next one. Who cared about that, really? Local fencing was the big deal.
Now the 'serious' fencers, my kids included, often train more or less focused on going to the next NAC, and local events are often treated as trivial. Why it's a good idea to fly a C across the country to fence a bunch of other Cs is still a bit of a mystery to me, but it is, and the kids like it, so that's fine. But I'm not convinced it's necessary to completely give up on local stuff. The thing we all have to realize is that local stuff is far, far more cost effective than flying all hither and yon for no good reason if we can all just agree to do it! If no one goes the local event is worthless, but how many times have two of our kids flown across the country to fence each other in a round of 16 or 32, in Cadets or Juniors or Div II?
I've started to talk to my fencers about that; "For the money we'd spend on us going to Cincinnati, we could go to South Texas or Dallas three times". Hey, you know, not bad.
As fencing gets bigger we're going to have to develop local championships that mean something. Baseball and football high school teams don't fly to Cincinnati to play the other teams in the country who are under .500, they play for the regional and then state championships, they they're done, because there's lots of baseball and football, they're popular sports, so they have to do that. Fencing is a little sport, so we can still think about flying everyone who's "serious" all here and there several times a year. And that's keeping us little! If you don't want to fly to several NACs a year you're not "serious"? Oh boy.
TL;DR. The SW Section Circuit Cup was a good idea. We should do more of that sort of thing.
K O'N
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 12, 2012 10:52:35 GMT -6
I am not disagreeing that our local policies need changing. I do disagree that changing those policies will magically expand fencing locally. The South Texas Division has had policies quite divergent from those of the Gulf Coast, yet it appears to going through many of the same problems in tournament attendance.
We need much more of an answer.
If you look at the division calendar as it comes out each fall (usually late August/early September) there is one local tournament pretty much most weekends. Some weekends have more than one.
Some clubs want to hold a tournament once a month, either as an income generator or to give their members a place to compete. Fine. I am not personally opposed to that. It would increase the number of tournaments. I am, however, skeptical that such a plan helps local tournament attendance in general.
If Katy Blades holds their usual tournament once per month, and Salle Mauro, and Alliance, and BCFA, and Woodlands... does this not contribute to making local tournaments not a big deal. Why do I (if I am a BFCA fencer) go to Brazosport if BCFA has a tournament that weekend? Why go to compete at BCFA if Salle Mauro has a tournament that weekend and Salle Mauro is my club?
If this is true, we are left with same problem we have now.
Of course it would solve some problems for the clubs that are businesses. Their fencers would likely stay in the area and compete at their home club. The income from each fencer would stay and be spent at their home club and not at a rival's tournament. Also the clubs could give their local fencers something to fence at each week/month without them having to drive a few miles to another club's tournament. It would likely be easier to get them to commit to competing at their own club than at some strange place they do not know,
This looks more like a plan that would further Balkanize the local clubs with regard to each other. Pretty soon you would find a situation where almost all the competitors at a Salle Mauro tournament (for instance) were from Salle Mauro or most of the fencers at an Alliance tournament were from Alliance.
Sorry. I got that wrong. That is our current situation.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 12, 2012 10:59:56 GMT -6
This weekend the Van Buskirk is being held at Salle Mauro. It was originally scheduled to be held at Rice. Part of the reason for the move was low pre-registration figures.
The Van Buskirk was once one of the premier tournaments in Texas. I appreciate that Aldo had difficulty drawing conclusions from the spotty data recorded on FRED. I think, however, most long-time fencers here will recall competing at the Van Buskirk one or more times in the past.
If you did and are not competing at it now... what drove that decision?
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Feb 12, 2012 11:16:23 GMT -6
I would suggest either the DeGall or the St. Mark's Open. While neither is generally huge, they generate respectable numbers and may determine if North Texas follows the pattern (which I fear it may). I've always liked the St. Mark's Open, so here goes: 2003 Mixed Epee: 16 B1 Mixed Foil: 18 B1 Mixed Saber: 15 D1 Women's Epee: 6 E1 Women's Foil: NOT HELD Women's Saber: 8 E1 2004 Mixed Epee: 25 A2 Mixed Foil: 15 B1 Mixed Saber: 15 D1 Women's Epee: 10 E1 Women's Foil: 5 Women's Saber: 9 E1 2005 Mixed Epee: 28 A2 Mixed Foil: 16 B1 Mixed Saber: 28 D1 Women's Epee: 4 Women's Foil: 10 E1 Women's Saber: 12 E1 2006 Mixed Epee: 36 B2 Mixed Foil: 24 B1 Mixed Saber: 25 D1 Women's Epee: 11 E1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Saber: 12 E1 2007 Mixed Epee: 32 A2 Mixed Foil: 10 E1 Mixed Saber: 24 D1 Women's Epee: 12 E1 Women's Foil: 9 E1 Women's Saber: 12 E1 2008 (NO SENIOR OPEN EVENTS THIS YEAR, RESULTS BELOW FROM JR EVENTS) Mixed Epee: 27 D1 Mixed Foil: 9 E1 Mixed Saber: 31 C2 Women's Epee: 17 D1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Saber: 14 E1 2009 Mixed Epee: 19 B1 Mixed Foil: 11 E1 Mixed Saber: 32 B2 Women's Epee: 8 E1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Saber: 8 E1 2010 Mixed Epee: 31 B2 Mixed Foil: 14 E1 Mixed Saber: 32 B2 Women's Epee: 12 E1 Women's Foil: 12 E1 Women's Saber: 7 E1 2011 Mixed Epee: 43 B2 Mixed Foil: 20 A1 Mixed Saber: 32 B2 Women's Epee: 9 E1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Saber: 10 E1
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Feb 12, 2012 11:37:21 GMT -6
joevisconti: It looks like the St. Mark's weathered things fairly well. They look to have peaked in 2006, hit their low point in 2009 and have been holding their own of working upward these last two years.
fox, I would also ask the same question about the Pouj as you asked of the Van Buskirk. If you (the fencers reading this) competed there in the past, why did you not compete this year or recently?
Also, we have heard a lot of discussion about changes to how/how many tournaments a club should hold, as a business. What about the colleges and smaller, part-time clubs? What is your current model? How amny tournaments do you hold per year? If you hold none, why?
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 12:37:07 GMT -6
I had half a dozen Y12/Y14 kids who wanted to fence Y14 epee, but no one else signed up. A few Alliance kids signed up without paying, which led me to think they weren't actually coming, since there was an Alliance thing the same day at the same time (!!).
If the host club has NO ONE who fences that weapon at that age it's very hard to get the first few people to sign up. I tried to drum up some people to go to this, but as of Friday no one had signed up, so we dropped it. My kids and kids' parents were pretty adamant that they weren't driving to Rice and paying $40 to fence each other. They wanted someone new to fence.
Frankly, I should have had them sign up for the Alliance thing in the first place, but I wanted to support the VB. Then there was a period of emails and texts running about the club on the subject of 'no one's signed up', 'should we switch to the other tournament', 'are we going at all', and the cardinal rule of Thou Shall Provide An Ironclad Plan With At Least One Week Lead Time had been broken and we didn't go anywhere. Which is not the end of the world, but that's why we didn't go to the VB.
K O'N
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 12:50:08 GMT -6
I am not disagreeing that our local policies need changing. I do disagree that changing those policies will magically expand fencing locally. The South Texas Division has had policies quite divergent from those of the Gulf Coast, yet it appears to going through many of the same problems in tournament attendance. Two patients can have a fever for different reasons. Pouj and Pesthy are both gone, to all of our detriment, and the Pentathletes have moved to Colorado. South Texas is not what it was. I mean no disrespect to the people who still coach and fence there, but twenty years ago we used to go to South Texas like we were going to war, just try to survive and learn something. Now it's arguable that Houston and Dallas are both stronger fencing areas than Austin or San Antonio. So a slow slide in South Texas is likely demographics, just less fencing is happening there. Not none, I emphasize, but less. And the fencing that is happening there is more than ever focused on national level competition, flying to a NAC rather than winning the Pouj. So they get good results and good for them, but there's less mid level stuff than there used to be, I think, which means we should expect local events to suffer. The Gulf Coast has meanwhile gained some really good coaches, and there's a lot more fencing here than there used to be. We should be seeing competition numbers go up... If I may be forgiven a simplification of a situation I wasn't here for and no doubt fail to grasp the nuances of, this is when the USFA stepped in last time, no? I think they did so prematurely. It's easy to assume that a complex system will fall into a simple steady state, in this case "no one will go to someone else's event to fence". But is that right? Let it run, let it run. It's not right for my kids. We'll go anywhere, we don't care. I suspect it's not right for CLFC fencers, or Galveston. Let it run. If you're only charging your own kids $20 to fence each other at practice on Friday and calling it a "tournament", you know, I bet that doesn't last long. Exactly. The current rules are supposed to force us to fence each other? That doesn't work. Drop the rules, see what happens. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 12, 2012 16:18:25 GMT -6
Let's talk about paradigms. In the mid 80's to early 90's, the tournaments were held by the division. The entire schedule was pre-determined in the GCD, and each division set aside their schedules. In September we would hold a tournament getting everyone back from the summer, and pass out flyers to every fencer on the next several tournaments. Oscar, Kevin, Chris Trammell, Scott Clark, Howard Williams, Glenn Weathington, myself and others would CALL each other, and then hand out to every fencer flyers on upcoming tournaments. Oscar and I would hand out flyers at the Duel at Dallas for the Pouj and Van Buskirk, and I would hand out flyers at the Pouj to EVERY fencer. Oscar would hand out flyers at the Van Buskirk for the Yorrick. We made it so people could schedule their tournaments long term and advertise it. If people earned their ratings, then they were honored. If people wanted trophies, we gave trophies. If people wanted beer mugs, we gave beer mugs. If a new club formed the person at the division made certain we hosted tournaments at that location to help their new fencers become aware of the USFA and tournaments. Spindletop, Victoria, YMCA at Washington are just a few in the GCD. We developed these outside the schedule to react to the conditions. If the club was new fencers, we developed a beginner fencer circuit. That is why we would have participation rates in the Southwest Section that rival 30% and higher of the USFA membership for the section. We treated the tournaments as something the officers owed the membership, and we communicated that to them. We did not feel that clubs should force their members to attend a tournament just because it was schedule, we worked to entice the members. It was good marketing. NOW LOOK AT THE PRESENT DAY: In the GCD I could not tell me fencers what is scheduled several months out without Fred. I look at the GCD website, and this is what I see www.gulfcoastfencing.org/schedule.php?version=ALL&start=TODAY. Every single tournament with every age group possible and all weapons. Does this really happen? NO!!!! Then we have the issues of why people fence: 1. Fun 2. Parents make them 3. Exercise 4. See improvement in a sport 5. Compete against equally balanced individuals 6. Wear pretty mostly white clothing. Although I like No. 6, number 4 and 1 are probably key factors. What is fun if you can't rank yourself with improvement, (Ratings)? The issue with ratings not being approved has driven many parents away from the sport. They don't want their children whining about their ratings and how they are not doing better and put them in something else. What is fun about sitting in a gym waiting for the higher authorities sitting behind the desk talk and delay the tournament? When Katy Blades hosted the first SSCC in Houston after being in College Station repeatedly, Vitaly and other top fencers told me that they would not come if they were going to sit around all day. DID YOU CATCH THE FACT THAT I PERSONALLY ASKED THEM? I promised a quick event, and delivered. I even confirmed it with them at the end of the day, (CUSTOMER FEEDBACK). The current paradigm is that fencing is something you must do, and you should look it up and work to find it. You should fence everywhere it shows up and you are unwashed heathens if you don't. THAT IS THE THINKING OF THE RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL, AND NOT AN OLYMPIC SPORT!! This thinking will either need to be changed to a customer oriented, (fencers are the customers, followed closely by parents of fencers), approach or you will be discussing this same thing again 5 years from now. We already hit on this subject before, many times. The Elitist strategy has not worked. What is elite about the ability to fence? Does it make a person better than anyone else? The ability to be successful long-term in fencing does say things about your mental capacity, and I do admire that. It does not mean you are better than parents or students beginning the sport. The thing to do is to have each division officer and division run as if they were the servants of the fencers, and not the other way around. This would solve most of the issues discussed on this board.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 18:34:59 GMT -6
Let's talk about paradigms. In the mid 80's to early 90's, the tournaments were held by the division. The entire schedule was pre-determined in the GCD, and each division set aside their schedules. In September we would hold a tournament getting everyone back from the summer, and pass out flyers to every fencer on the next several tournaments. Oscar, Kevin, Chris Trammell, Scott Clark, Howard Williams, Glenn Weathington, myself and others would CALL each other, and then hand out to every fencer flyers on upcoming tournaments. Oscar and I would hand out flyers at the Duel at Dallas for the Pouj and Van Buskirk, and I would hand out flyers at the Pouj to EVERY fencer. Oscar would hand out flyers at the Van Buskirk for the Yorrick. We made it so people could schedule their tournaments long term and advertise it. If people earned their ratings, then they were honored. If people wanted trophies, we gave trophies. If people wanted beer mugs, we gave beer mugs. If a new club formed the person at the division made certain we hosted tournaments at that location to help their new fencers become aware of the USFA and tournaments. Spindletop, Victoria, YMCA at Washington are just a few in the GCD. We developed these outside the schedule to react to the conditions. If the club was new fencers, we developed a beginner fencer circuit. That is why we would have participation rates in the Southwest Section that rival 30% and higher of the USFA membership for the section. We treated the tournaments as something the officers owed the membership, and we communicated that to them. We did not feel that clubs should force their members to attend a tournament just because it was schedule, we worked to entice the members. It was good marketing. This aligns with how I remember it too. I wasn't a Division chair until the late 90s, but I was UNT club president and I did a lot of tournament marketing, as did all the UNT guys, when John James was Division (Section?) chair. The big take-away here is that everything was planned, down to what events we would run, way, way in advance, and you could make a schedule months in advance. We had no internet so it was a pain in the ass to change anything, so we actually planned stuff out and stuck to it. The schedule was much more static than it is now. I don't have an issue with using askfred, but I do have an issue with late scheduling, and with changing stuff from year to year. If you want something to get big it has to be predictable and fencers have to be able to plan for it. I don't really agree with all this. Local fencing has declined in importance among elite fencers because NACs, as expensive as they are, offer better value. I know there will be a certain number of NACs of whatever sort next year; two Cadet NACs, or two Div II, or whatever. I can plan on them. I can train for them. They're expensive to get to and fence in, but there's also a chance I'll do well. If we want to compete with a predictable thing like a NAC we have to produce a predictable product locally. The idea of a ROC is a good start, but you have to bid on a ROC from year to year, so they jump around. That's a disaster, you'll never build something big if it's not consistent so people can plan for it. The Wang has run the same sort of event a few years in a row and it's doing well. The SSCC was a good idea, if we could keep that going from year to year it could do well. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that jumping around from one kind of event one year to another kind another year is a disaster, and events popping up on askfred a month before they happen is a disaster, and listing tons of events you can't fill is a disaster. I would never run a saber or foil event at Brazosport, I don't have anyone to fence it. It's likely no one would come. I think this is a good discussion to have, but we should keep our collective eye on the ball; the reason local tournaments aren't primary goals anymore is because something else is, NACs. If we want local events to become primary goals, at least for some fencers, we have to produce something that beats a NAC on a cost/benefit scale. One thing that costs nothing is advance notice and planning. Add to that the sort of publicity Augie is talking about, and which some of you, like John and Davis, are good about doing for your local events, and you get the Fete de Lune, a great local tradition, or the Naomi Abbot, which my girls are already talking about for this year, or the Cougar Call to Arms, which was a great event last year. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 12, 2012 19:07:37 GMT -6
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 19:33:41 GMT -6
Good, now look at the right hand column. Y10/12, Y14/C/J, A/V in half the spaces. When was the last Cadet or Junior event around here that was not a qualifier? But weekend after weekend is listed as having everything from Y10 to Junior events. Now how are you supposed to look at that and plan what to go to? K O'N
|
|
Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Feb 12, 2012 19:53:46 GMT -6
It seems the last four pages have boiled down to a few key points. Most of which I can agree with.
First off, there are too many tournaments in the GCD. Just because a weekend is available does not mean there has to be a tournament scheduled for that weekend. Increasing the rarity of local tournaments will increase tournament attendance.
Secondly, many people, as well as myself, agree that the SSCCs were great. Back in it's prime, my purpose of fencing was to train to get into the top 3 of the SSCC. I went to local tournaments so that when the SSCC came up, I was in good condition for it. This is the mentality the competitive fencers have for a NAC. And if the local fencers can approach a tournament with the same mentality that they do a NAC, why not pursue this.
Starting a league/circuit of some sorts in GCD would be an excellent move. A point system that can be easily accessed through Fred, decent medals, a championship, and something for these high school kids to put into a portfolio.... that is something worth fencing for.
Have a rotation system among the clubs for who gets to host these circuit tournaments. Adding it in with the rotation for JO Quals and Division Quals. And in between these circuits and championships, allow the clubs to host their in-house (practice) tournaments. Just a suggestion, maybe even only allow ratings to be earned at these circuits. If there are only 4 changes a year for me to locally increase my ratings, I would definitely take it seriously and I would be at them all.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 12, 2012 20:18:45 GMT -6
I think most of the posts have merit. That said, I can only imagine the firestorm from the various clubs if we told them they would have to restrict the number of tournaments they hold per year.
As things stand, with or without USFA classification changes, Alliance holds a tournament a month for most of the year. They took to holding non-USFA tournaments as a way around strictures from the division on the number of tournaments you should hold in a season (with official sanction).
I also note, in all fairness, that they have been reasonably successful with this format. This also sometimes reduces the number of Alliance fencers at other clubs' tournament on those same weekends. There is a difference in one's own best interests. Do I do this because it is good for fencing in my area/division or do I do that because it better serves my own club?
Bear in mind, you can get just gobs of people in the division to back a plan, but if so much as one of the bigger clubs chooses to follow their own star, it can fall apart.
As to that column on the division schedule that shows every tournament is essentially a 3-weapon, mens-womens-mixed, Div 1 through U-only, Y-8 through Vet 70+ event... it precisely because, as kon noted, it is very hard to organize the entire year at one sitting and plenty of people don't bother even attending, at that.
Thanks, however, for reminding me of that. It got me off my duff to email the webmaster to correct the information for the tournaments I organize.
|
|