|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 18, 2005 18:06:53 GMT -6
This discussion forum, obviously largely for fencing in the Gulf Coast Division, was started around August of 2003. Obviously the main inspiration was Fencing Net. (What can I say, Craig's the Godfather of Fencing Discussion online!) Over time I have noticed some other bulletin boards and discussion fora: the Ark-La-Miss Division has one begun circa April 2004 almfencingforum.proboards28.com/index.cgiThe Plains Texas Division - circa Septemeber 2004 fencing.proboards25.com/index.cgiThe Rocky Mountain Section - circa May 2005 rockymtsection.proboards39.com/I know there are also some club-specific fora and bulletin boards our there. The Clear Lake Fencing Club had one for a time. Who else is out there?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Jun 18, 2005 22:19:44 GMT -6
Amarillo College has one. Some interesting stuff there, but it isn't very active and parts of it are restricted access. acfencers.proboards20.com/index.cgiFunny how they all look like this forum, huh, Schlager!?*L*
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 19, 2005 8:18:03 GMT -6
Most of them, anyway. Another such is the little used board of the Clear Lake High School Fencing Club: ccmw2.proboards7.com/The club itself is either in limbo or faded away, but the site still gets some views and posts One club-based forum using a different provider seems to be the Arkansas Fencing Academy: www.arkansasfencingacademy.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/wwwfencing/yabb/YaBB.cgiI found a similar-looking forum for the Maine Fencers Forum: www.mainefencer.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi The site does not seem to have had a post in about a year. I first noticed it because it was a classical fencing forum (although like this forum and the one for Plains Texas Division, it has a section set aside for the SCA. The Kabal Forum (Missouri, I believe) is another classical fencing forum. WHile not terribly active, it is still in current use: kabal.cfssda.org/
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 15, 2005 15:48:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jul 18, 2005 14:07:23 GMT -6
I'll contribute one for the Southeast Section: www.sesfencing.com/forum/?CFID=271137&CFTOKEN=63008019Some of these boards provide an eye-opener to how things are done elsewhere. Here's an except from yet another board in another part of the country: The current officers of our division have made it pretty clear they don't like our clubs doing smaller sanctioned events because they feel it simply hands out ratings. That is the ONLY reason this event is not sanctioned. All rules and what-not will be followed.
|
|
more betterfewer bad
Guest
|
Post by more betterfewer bad on Jul 18, 2005 14:40:51 GMT -6
Yeah and this section (SE) does not have a lot of good fencers either. Wonder why? Perhaps they don't have as much opportunity to fence. Go to NYC and the great northeast. There are multiple tournaments there EVERY weekend, and plenty of opportunity to compete. Guess what...they do great at big tournaments and stay sharp.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jul 18, 2005 15:43:12 GMT -6
Thanks Fox, for the information from the SE Section. I have heard that quote exactly from a current and past officer of the SW Section. If handing out ratings is a bad thing, then lets look at the current rating system.
To win an "E", place first among 6 people. Top 16% of all people who ever competed in an USFA competition.
To win a "D", place first among 15 people. Top 6% - 7% of all people who ever competed in an USFA competition.
To win a "C", it gets more complicated. It used to be by USFA guidelines the top 5% were "C"s, top 3% were "B"s and the top 1% were "A"s. We are in line with those guidelines pretty well. If we don't allow people to earn their ratings, how will they be able to compete in the International competititions that require the rating?
I am an "A" in epee earned at Nationals, "C" in foil and "E" in epee reearned at Nationals. I have no problem with someone getting the opportunity to earn their rating. I am proud of Michael El-Saleh, our newest "A" foilist. I am proud that I have scored valid touches on him recently.
It comes down to the fact that the rating system is designed to help fencers and encourage fencing. We do need more competitions that do not compete with each other, and the sport will grow. We also need our ratings approved.
You all have the opportunity to vote if you also want the opportunity to fence and have your ratings approved. The current administration is not in favor of ratings increases, and I can point to many problems with this. The best investigation you can do is ask Christine Simmons in the USFA office. Then VOTE.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Jul 18, 2005 16:33:52 GMT -6
Just to clarify... Although the link Fox posted was for the Southeast Section Forum, the quote was from the Rocky Mountain Section Forum, and relates to a policy matter being debated in the Plains Texas Division.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 27, 2005 12:57:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 27, 2005 12:31:32 GMT -6
This appears to be another classical fencing forum, locally based around St. Louis. Fencers Unite
|
|
|
Post by fox on Oct 4, 2005 14:31:29 GMT -6
Here's one, not a fencing forum, per se... It seems to be the local (Texas/Oklahoma) forum for the SCA, but it does have a "light fighting" board, which is their fencing: www.ansteorraforums.net/ It does not seem too busy, though. As for bonafide USFA-type fencing forums (oops, fora!) there is one for the Virginia Division
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 8, 2005 10:03:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 21, 2005 11:10:45 GMT -6
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 9, 2006 9:05:52 GMT -6
Okay, I took a fly at most of the boards listed in this thread so far. I found a couple of dead links like Oklahoma, one classical site in shut-down mode and the Rocky Mountain Section has moved... well, their BBS moved.
Other than the Virginia Division, most were dead as a doornail. I realize a lot were club-based and have a smaller pool to draw on than division and sectioned based boards, but even the Illinois Division site was dead!
Most of them were lucky to get three posts per month (usually at least two were from LongBlade!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Is this board doomed, too?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Jun 9, 2006 10:30:53 GMT -6
Okay, I took a fly at most of the boards listed in this thread so far. I found a couple of dead links like Oklahoma, one classical site in shut-down mode and the Rocky Mountain Section has moved... well, their BBS moved. Other than the Virginia Division, most were dead as a doornail. I realize a lot were club-based and have a smaller pool to draw on than division and sectioned based boards, but even the Illinois Division site was dead! Most of them were lucky to get three posts per month (usually at least two were from LongBlade!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Is this board doomed, too? OK, I admit to having a bit of a "posting problem", but this board seems to be pretty active and vital... even without me.
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Jun 9, 2006 21:49:57 GMT -6
Is this board doomed, too? I dunno. I'd say this one is chugging along fine. Then again, I'm an optomist.
|
|
|
Post by thecarpinator on Jun 9, 2006 22:21:59 GMT -6
Glass is always half full with me....
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 10, 2006 22:17:21 GMT -6
I would say that this forum has managed to achieve a critical mass by replacing any demand for similar forums for clubs, or even other divisions in the SW Section.
|
|