Post by Flamberge on Jan 4, 2007 1:48:13 GMT -6
I read the comments and the original article A Parallel Season posted about the Houston Cup and I find myself (surprise!) on a different position than the author of the article and some of the commentators. I'd like to take the opportunity to present a different point of view and let everyone decide what suits them.
The author of the article properly presents the case of the beginnings of the Houston Cup by stating that this initiative met with mixed success. The reasons for the troubled start are many, the usual reluctance to start anything new and untried, the acrimonious environment at the time where only few (two) clubs wanted to monopolize all local tournaments, and the hostility against the two newer clubs (Alliance Fencing Academy and Katy Blades) for sucking up fencers from the established clubs. There might have been also some personalities issues... In any case the idea got off the ground and met with some success.
Plans to make the Houston Cup part of the regular activities of the Division never took off, mainly because of issues of control and again personality [this was the year when the GC Division had an "illegal" board made of representatives of most clubs which wanted to supervise the elected officials]. There was also an issue of quality of service provided and many "customers" became upset how certain issues were handled when the "official" division tournaments were held, the problems of sanctioning, ratings, refereeing, etc.
While all this was happening, several local fencers were gaining a name and recognition for themselves and their coaches nationally: the epee programs in the GC Division are among the most successful in the country. Many, if not all the "elite" fencers in our area had or were getting their top ratings (A, B, C) in national events so the "need" at least for them to improve their ratings in local tournaments wasn't there. What was there and remains is the "need" to practice efficiently and effectively.
It became clear that a different approach could be used and this is the prime motivation for the current metamorphosis of the Houston Cup. Anyone who has assisted at one of the "events" organized under the "new" NCAA format, cannot but agree that it provides a full workout and training for all, both elite and regular fencers. It is also a very inexpensive way to get ample practice in fencing top fencers and in using efficiently the physical facilities (all strips are used at the same time since bouts are fought simultaneously and waiting times are reduced to a minimum) without taxing the human resources (bouts are self refereed and only one coach oversees all bouts by essentially keeping the time).
These training events, as it is clearly stated, are not USFA sanctioned tournaments and consequently do not grant change in ratings. They are in fact a way to train for national and international competitions by simulating certain aspects of a major tournament (intense bouting) and integrating the practice bouting and what is learned during lessons taken by the large majority of fencers with competitive ambitions. The result thus far is that several fencers who participate show great improvements if measured by the national points and ratings they are earning at official national USFA events. Another proof of this "pudding" is the interest in these "training tournaments" on the part of fencers from neighboring divisions who visit us regularly.
So, it seems that this should be a good thing for everyone. The final word will be that of the customers: if they like it, they'll come, if they don't, they will stay away.
Do these training events "compete" with the officially sanctioned events by the Division or the Section? Well, just like any free time activity would, like going to the movies, or taking a hike, or travel out of state, or simply stay idle. Free people decide what they want to do with their free time. It's up to the organizers of any event, official or not, to present a "package" and sell a "service" that attracts customers to their venue instead of another one.
I disagree with the characterization of this initiative as a parallel season. Parallel lines, though they do not cross, share a common direction. These two lines instead do not cross, nor do they share a common direction. They reflect a very different approach on how to develop fencing and good competitive fencers.
There are also simple economic considerations that matter. Fencers at Alliance or Katy Blades fence for free in these events when their club is the host, as they are part of the "services" provided by these clubs to their members. Non members pay only a $10 floor fee each time and get plenty of high quality practice. Nobody gets any ratings for winning or placing high, but everybody practices and has lots of fun in a friendly atmosphere without arguments of who did what to whom, or protests against the non present referees and other Big Cheese of the Division going around with tape measures and the Book of Rules to make sure that the unsanctionable is not sanctioned.
On the other side there may be another "official" tournament, usually catering to a different segment of the fencing population and market, charging quite a bit more money (obviously, because of the organization behind it, referees, LOC members, armourer, etc.) and giving in return the opportunity to increase the rating. It's a trade off anyone will make and no one can criticize. They will be assured that the "official" tournament is run under the canons of the USFA and if the "service" provided by the official tournament will meet or exceed the customers' expectations, people will flock there.
If someone bothers to run a check on Askfred, there are 18 tournaments in the GC Division between August 1 and December 31, 2006. Of these, 13 submitted the results on Askfred. Among this last group, at the non Alliance tournaments these are the numbers of Alliance fencers who participated (note: the # indicate events in which an ALL fencer competed):
Fete de Lune: 2
Cougar: 11
Katy Blades Youth team: 0
Heavy Metal: 1
Battle of the Bayou: 1
Swords of Troy: 2
Regional Youth at BCFA: 11
Gobbler revenge: 1
JO qualifiers: 12
Naomi Abbott: 0
D and Under at BCFA: 5
In addition, The Houston Cup initiative tries to satisfy a demand which in many users opinion was not met by the established system. There is no need to rehash the whys and hows but this forum has in the past hosted spirited protests and discussions about the "disservice" at the official tournaments. In a free market system when you upset customers you offer an opportunity to create something new, and this is what happened in this case.
Before gratuitously accusing anyone of lying or dealing in an underhanded fashion, everyone is welcome to try this "new" system and see if they like it. Also, talking directly with Andrey could help clarify any confusions or lingering doubt. After speaking with many people from various clubs in the division who have tried these training tournaments, the conclusion is that the method thus employed to develop and train competitive fencers AND to promote fencing in our area is very good and not at all troubling.
A Happy New Year to all!
The author of the article properly presents the case of the beginnings of the Houston Cup by stating that this initiative met with mixed success. The reasons for the troubled start are many, the usual reluctance to start anything new and untried, the acrimonious environment at the time where only few (two) clubs wanted to monopolize all local tournaments, and the hostility against the two newer clubs (Alliance Fencing Academy and Katy Blades) for sucking up fencers from the established clubs. There might have been also some personalities issues... In any case the idea got off the ground and met with some success.
Plans to make the Houston Cup part of the regular activities of the Division never took off, mainly because of issues of control and again personality [this was the year when the GC Division had an "illegal" board made of representatives of most clubs which wanted to supervise the elected officials]. There was also an issue of quality of service provided and many "customers" became upset how certain issues were handled when the "official" division tournaments were held, the problems of sanctioning, ratings, refereeing, etc.
While all this was happening, several local fencers were gaining a name and recognition for themselves and their coaches nationally: the epee programs in the GC Division are among the most successful in the country. Many, if not all the "elite" fencers in our area had or were getting their top ratings (A, B, C) in national events so the "need" at least for them to improve their ratings in local tournaments wasn't there. What was there and remains is the "need" to practice efficiently and effectively.
It became clear that a different approach could be used and this is the prime motivation for the current metamorphosis of the Houston Cup. Anyone who has assisted at one of the "events" organized under the "new" NCAA format, cannot but agree that it provides a full workout and training for all, both elite and regular fencers. It is also a very inexpensive way to get ample practice in fencing top fencers and in using efficiently the physical facilities (all strips are used at the same time since bouts are fought simultaneously and waiting times are reduced to a minimum) without taxing the human resources (bouts are self refereed and only one coach oversees all bouts by essentially keeping the time).
These training events, as it is clearly stated, are not USFA sanctioned tournaments and consequently do not grant change in ratings. They are in fact a way to train for national and international competitions by simulating certain aspects of a major tournament (intense bouting) and integrating the practice bouting and what is learned during lessons taken by the large majority of fencers with competitive ambitions. The result thus far is that several fencers who participate show great improvements if measured by the national points and ratings they are earning at official national USFA events. Another proof of this "pudding" is the interest in these "training tournaments" on the part of fencers from neighboring divisions who visit us regularly.
So, it seems that this should be a good thing for everyone. The final word will be that of the customers: if they like it, they'll come, if they don't, they will stay away.
Do these training events "compete" with the officially sanctioned events by the Division or the Section? Well, just like any free time activity would, like going to the movies, or taking a hike, or travel out of state, or simply stay idle. Free people decide what they want to do with their free time. It's up to the organizers of any event, official or not, to present a "package" and sell a "service" that attracts customers to their venue instead of another one.
I disagree with the characterization of this initiative as a parallel season. Parallel lines, though they do not cross, share a common direction. These two lines instead do not cross, nor do they share a common direction. They reflect a very different approach on how to develop fencing and good competitive fencers.
There are also simple economic considerations that matter. Fencers at Alliance or Katy Blades fence for free in these events when their club is the host, as they are part of the "services" provided by these clubs to their members. Non members pay only a $10 floor fee each time and get plenty of high quality practice. Nobody gets any ratings for winning or placing high, but everybody practices and has lots of fun in a friendly atmosphere without arguments of who did what to whom, or protests against the non present referees and other Big Cheese of the Division going around with tape measures and the Book of Rules to make sure that the unsanctionable is not sanctioned.
On the other side there may be another "official" tournament, usually catering to a different segment of the fencing population and market, charging quite a bit more money (obviously, because of the organization behind it, referees, LOC members, armourer, etc.) and giving in return the opportunity to increase the rating. It's a trade off anyone will make and no one can criticize. They will be assured that the "official" tournament is run under the canons of the USFA and if the "service" provided by the official tournament will meet or exceed the customers' expectations, people will flock there.
If someone bothers to run a check on Askfred, there are 18 tournaments in the GC Division between August 1 and December 31, 2006. Of these, 13 submitted the results on Askfred. Among this last group, at the non Alliance tournaments these are the numbers of Alliance fencers who participated (note: the # indicate events in which an ALL fencer competed):
Fete de Lune: 2
Cougar: 11
Katy Blades Youth team: 0
Heavy Metal: 1
Battle of the Bayou: 1
Swords of Troy: 2
Regional Youth at BCFA: 11
Gobbler revenge: 1
JO qualifiers: 12
Naomi Abbott: 0
D and Under at BCFA: 5
In addition, The Houston Cup initiative tries to satisfy a demand which in many users opinion was not met by the established system. There is no need to rehash the whys and hows but this forum has in the past hosted spirited protests and discussions about the "disservice" at the official tournaments. In a free market system when you upset customers you offer an opportunity to create something new, and this is what happened in this case.
Before gratuitously accusing anyone of lying or dealing in an underhanded fashion, everyone is welcome to try this "new" system and see if they like it. Also, talking directly with Andrey could help clarify any confusions or lingering doubt. After speaking with many people from various clubs in the division who have tried these training tournaments, the conclusion is that the method thus employed to develop and train competitive fencers AND to promote fencing in our area is very good and not at all troubling.
A Happy New Year to all!