nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 8:26:39 GMT -6
Post by nemo on Mar 10, 2006 8:26:39 GMT -6
I'm not going to the NAC... Alliance canned their tournament... To believe the calendar, the closest open epee in Baton Rouge... then El Paso... There's an SSCC next week, in Dallas, and a tournament in San Marcos, but I was going to watch the NCAAs that week. Mauro's got something next week, but just for the kiddies. Doesn't anyone do anything for fencers who are old enough to drink and vote? Why is it always feast or famine? Okay, I'm done complaining and feel better now.
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 10:00:50 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Mar 10, 2006 10:00:50 GMT -6
Happy we could provide you with a place to vent. Anytime...
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 11:48:48 GMT -6
Post by thecarpinator on Mar 10, 2006 11:48:48 GMT -6
I'll buy the beers in Dallas....
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 13:00:19 GMT -6
Post by DavidSierra on Mar 10, 2006 13:00:19 GMT -6
Ummm.... There's an event in Houston on the same weekend as an SSCC event in another division...
Here we go again. Can't we go ONE season without this happening?
Note: The one in San Marcos was moved according to all sources.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 13:06:40 GMT -6
Post by nemo on Mar 10, 2006 13:06:40 GMT -6
In fairness to Mauro (to think we all lived long enough to see me type those words), most of his competitors were unlikely to be fencing at an SSCC no matter where:
Events Scheduled: Y10 Mixed Foil Y12 Mixed Epee Y12 Mixed Foil Y12 Mixed Saber Y12 Mixed Saber Y14 Mixed Epee Y14 Mixed Foil Y14 Mixed Saber Y8 Mixed Foil
Besides, theres also a tournament in Louisiana the same weekend. I didn't see you zapping them.
What sources. The San Marcos tournaments have been hopping around the calendar this season like rabbits on crank.
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 13:08:57 GMT -6
Post by DavidSierra on Mar 10, 2006 13:08:57 GMT -6
Thats cause Louisiana isn't part of the SSCC...
And the ops manual specifies all tournaments, including youth. Contrary to what some might think, it was not modified (ask your Section Officers as to why they didn't get around to it yet).
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Bored
Mar 10, 2006 13:10:27 GMT -6
Post by nemo on Mar 10, 2006 13:10:27 GMT -6
And the ops manual specifies all tournaments, including youth. Contrary to what some might think, it was not modified (ask your Section Officers as to why they didn't get around to it yet). I have section officers???!?!?!?!
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 11, 2006 12:33:45 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on Mar 11, 2006 12:33:45 GMT -6
I'll buy the beers in Dallas.... To use an Oscar Barrera line, "Winner buys the beer, loser buys the barbeque..."
|
|
|
Bored
Mar 15, 2006 12:44:24 GMT -6
Post by kd5mdk on Mar 15, 2006 12:44:24 GMT -6
You should have come to Reno then, it was plenty good.
|
|
|
Bored
Apr 14, 2006 0:47:37 GMT -6
Post by Prudence on Apr 14, 2006 0:47:37 GMT -6
[Doesn't anyone do anything for fencers who are old enough to drink and vote?...Why is it always feast or famine?] Well, I can vote, just can't drink... legally. but yeah I know what you mean.. I preregister for tournaments well in advance and sometimes it seems like there just aren't any tournaments, besides Y- too-young-for-me-to-fence, when I plan to be in Houston.
|
|
|
Bored
Apr 14, 2006 16:03:57 GMT -6
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 14, 2006 16:03:57 GMT -6
That's why the fencing gods provided Austin, San Marcos and Dallas...
|
|
|
Bored
Apr 14, 2006 23:37:35 GMT -6
Post by Prudence on Apr 14, 2006 23:37:35 GMT -6
true true, but the fencing God's didn't always provide transportation to go along with it.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Bored
May 16, 2006 13:19:28 GMT -6
Post by nemo on May 16, 2006 13:19:28 GMT -6
Well, I'm looking at another youth-only tournament weekend in America's 4th largest city...
Was last season (with 2-3 tournaments some weekends) so terribly bad??? I say let any club that feels froggy hold a tournament whenever they want. (Okay, make 'em kick in 50 bucks to the division to supply a "monitor" to make sure it's all on the up & up).
Sorry, I'll stop whining now. Maybe there's something in San Marcos or Dallas...
|
|
|
Bored
May 16, 2006 14:22:58 GMT -6
Post by DavidSierra on May 16, 2006 14:22:58 GMT -6
well, it IS getting to be the end of the season you know...
But this weekend there is the DeGalle in Dallas
|
|
|
Bored
May 16, 2006 14:46:50 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on May 16, 2006 14:46:50 GMT -6
If you're still bored weekend after next, the Clear Lake Fencing Club has an open tournament. Fencers old enough to drink and vote are welcome. Details are on FRED.
Of course, David is right, it IS the end of the season so I imagine the pickings will be getting slim
|
|
|
Bored
May 17, 2006 10:36:19 GMT -6
Post by August Skopik on May 17, 2006 10:36:19 GMT -6
I get asked why I am not hosting tournaments all the time. When you have gotten emails from the current officers, (and past officers), each time you hold a tournament on Friday night before the tournament that you are holding an "illegal USFA"tournament then you decide not to play the game. I can post the emails here if needed, but people have gotten very mad about that in the past.
As a group, the division voted for these officers. Their email addresses are on the Gulf Coast Website. Email them. Email them again. Email them a third, fourth or fifth time. Email them all at once. I know that as a fencer I am not being represented with tournaments by the current and past officers. Being an officer first of all is having the responsibility of growing the sport and offering tournaments. We now have less tournaments than we did at any time that I remember back to 1981.
By the way, many of the finalists in the picture of the Van Buskirk are pretty easy. Bill Mangus, Bart Weathington, Bob Hurley, etc. Dwaine Blakely, 2nd, fences in our club and has gone from a U to a B06 this year. David Burns is the 3rd place finisher.
|
|
|
Bored
May 17, 2006 11:50:28 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on May 17, 2006 11:50:28 GMT -6
Actually, last year (I was one of the officers for the first 1/2 of the season), I was a convert to the marketplace theory:
Let as many clubs as wish to hold tournaments (just try to minimize same-day duplications) as often as they want. If people enjoy certain tournaments, they will return. If they have a bad experience they will not and, instead, go elsewhere.
I know from direct knowledge, (i.e. he told me to my face) that Matt Delevoryas thought the same way.
I, for one, was quite prepared to let the tournament collisions continue. I believe there are old posts where I and others stated as much.
Unfortunately, that was not how the USFA saw things. Mr. Alperstein and Ms. Baumgart were quite clear about that at the meeting.
I guess, one can always hold non-USFA events (like Salle Mauro on this coming weekend).
|
|
|
Bored
May 17, 2006 16:10:35 GMT -6
Post by August Skopik on May 17, 2006 16:10:35 GMT -6
John,
Don and Gerrie did not want the same event on the same day. They considered an event, such as Men's Epee on Saturday, to be an event and should not have a competing event on the same day. I AGREE!!! I DON'T THINK COMPETING EVENTS ON THE SAME DAY IS GOOD FOR THE SPORT!!!
I do disagree that having different events, and age groups, on the same day is hindering the sport at all. Both Don and Gerrie were very clear in the meeting that they did not see this as a problem either. Their position was that if there was a Men's epee event on Saturday in town, and a separate Men's epee event on Sunday then this was not a problem. Two Men's epee events the same day was a problem.
I have discussed this with many of the participants at the meeting, the McNamara's, Miceks, Captain Jon, Gremillions, Bones and others and everyone has agreed that what Don and Gerrie agreed to was not what is currently enforced by the Gulf Coast Division. That is why I had a problem with the minutes at the divisional meeting, it attributed a quote to me that was not accurate. I think Don and Gerrie have gotten tired of dealing with the GCD. Unfortunately, our fencers have to live here and deal with it. If you are fencer, then maybe being part of the South Texas Division is a solution.
|
|
|
Bored
May 17, 2006 23:06:46 GMT -6
Post by schlager7 on May 17, 2006 23:06:46 GMT -6
As noted, I agree with this sentiment. I can understand each club being issued a theirs-and-theirs-alone weekend (BTW, check the current thread on the Gulf Coast Division board) but I think the rest should be negotiable. I also think if a club has a theirs-and-theirs-alone weekend and that club wishes to allow other clubs to host tournaments on that weekend (so long as conflicts do not occur) it should be all right. By the same token, if that club says it wants sole rights to that weekend (even if their tournament is strictly seniors women's sabre), the rest of us just tough it out. (For some reason Ain't That Tough Enough by the Fabulous Thunderbirds starts running through my head right now.) Now I do understand that IF my club holds anything opposite an SSCC we don't get to host an SSCC for the forseeable future. Those are SSCC rules and, if my club wants an SSCC, we should play by the rules. OTOH, if there is a Div 1 & Youth NAC in Sacramento or Pheonix or Nashville and my club wants to hold your basic C & Under Seniors event opposite it in Houston, TX the USFA really should not have a beef with us. Granted, they can also tell me what the game is and if I don't like it I can pound sand. My other thought is this. Many of our tournaments this season were age-restricted youth events. Such events, IIRC, even under the best of circumstances, cannot issue classification changes unless they are at least a C1 event (highly unlikely at Y-12 and younger). Those are USFA rules. It just should not be that big an issue whether they are or are not USFA sanctioned. (Again, witness this weekend's event at Salle Mauro).
|
|
|
Bored
May 18, 2006 0:04:13 GMT -6
Post by LongBlade on May 18, 2006 0:04:13 GMT -6
If you are fencer, then maybe being part of the South Texas Division is a solution. Works for me!
|
|
|
Bored
May 18, 2006 0:31:09 GMT -6
Post by kd5mdk on May 18, 2006 0:31:09 GMT -6
The issue with sanctioning is insurance, of course.
|
|
|
Bored
May 18, 2006 1:18:16 GMT -6
Post by Dan Gorman on May 18, 2006 1:18:16 GMT -6
No, the issue with sanctioning is USFA ratings. If we offer a tournament that follows USFA rules and requires USFA membership, the insurance covers it. For some reason people get hung up on the ratings and seem to think that without those, they can't hold a tournament. If you want a rating, go to a SSCC event or a NAC and get one. If you want to go to a tournament on a given weekend, get your club to host one and have at it. The division can only hold ratings hostage, not the tournaments themselves.
Dan
|
|
|
Bored
May 18, 2006 8:16:56 GMT -6
Post by fox on May 18, 2006 8:16:56 GMT -6
Now hpfencing or Parry Nine may correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that, in the Plains TX Division they have a limited number of USFA-sanctioned events so that classifications require more work to get. I understood they had several tournaments that do not necessarily award classification changes.
|
|
|
Bored
May 22, 2006 19:05:38 GMT -6
Post by jazz007 on May 22, 2006 19:05:38 GMT -6
As far as Y-X tournaments v. SSCC events, I don't think the concern is loss of competitors to the competition, but to the running of the competition. For example, if my coach for whatever reason took a GIANT WEST-SIDE STORY sized leap from his senses, and held a Y tournament over an SSCC event, I would definitely ask him "what are you thinking!!!" I would also be at his left hand If he needed me, even if it meant missing the SSCC, because he's never let me down. Gods know the SSCC won't net me much anyway, yet Point being, it's not the loss of the Y competitors that hurts the SSCC, it's the loss of Senior competitors who would then be *running* the Y competitions that hurts the SSCC. My $.02. As for the San Marcos tournament dates resembling rabbits on crank - be that as it may, they're fun rabbits to go fence with once they get pinned on one of them. Just sayin.'
|
|
|
Bored
May 23, 2006 12:09:42 GMT -6
Post by August Skopik on May 23, 2006 12:09:42 GMT -6
A lot of good input, particularly from Jazz. Now lets look at things from a historical perspective. There was a time when we had limited people to run a tournament, and the current bout committee people were more scarce. We had to go through a period of training new people. Where better to train them than at local tournaments? We will need new trained people as the events are more numerous in the future. We have already seen the result of the directors growth in the Gulf Coast Division, and when we hosted the 2003 SSCC we had approximately 6 directors listed locally. I held a directors clinic that weekend at Mauro's, and the number of national directors has grown substantially from there.
We make an assumption that the people that would be going to these local events are skipping the SSCC. That is not a correct assumption. It probably takes at least one year to be able to fence at a SSCC from the time you begin fencing to not be embarrassed for my students, teenagers approximately 14 and younger youth. Their parents take about a year to even know what happens in a tournament, much less run one. I trained two excellent bout committee people last year, and they dived in faster than normal but can run almost any tournament Andrey or I can throw at them including repecharge, all places, etc. They also now understand the nuances of the initial seeding and the problems that the software programs have with teammates. They would not have learned this on a sectional level, because these tournaments are now run very well. You only learn some of the potential problems by making a mistake.
If a local club focuses its attention on these new fencers, what conflicts does it have with the SSCC?
As far as ratings and insurance, the big deal with ratings is the same as the big deal with handicaps in golf. Everyone wants to rate their progress. It also helps tremendously if the person has a reasonable classification in the first round of a national tournament. In tournaments with several rounds of pools, the issue was not as important as it is with DEs. Why hurt the Gulf Coast Fencers, and possibly hurt the other fencers by seeding these incorrectly? ((I don't personally mind, and would love my rating to be eliminated for tournament seeding so I can fence Risto, Johnny, Kyle, Robert, Jim, Paul etc. in the first round pools. That would be fun. You would see some moves thrown out there that have been forgotten)).
|
|