|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 18, 2005 15:42:12 GMT -6
The following post appeared in a different thread:
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.
It was a response to a quote from yet a different division 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.
The two quotes got me to wondering. We just completed a season with a LOT of tournaments and competitions. We had more than one weekend with two, even three tournaments in different parts of the division.
It is also rumored the USFA reps that paid us a visit were not terribly happy that we had multiple tournaments on a given weekend... although I really must extend kudos to Augie and Russell for seeing that, as often as possible, one tournament would hold epee on Saturday and the other on Sunday, etc...
So the question becomes how many USFA sanctioned tournaments SHOULD this division hold?
Are multiple events per weekend okay?
Should each club get one or two per season?
Should their be a rationing so that larger clubs are allowed more than smaller clubs?
Should all tournaments be sanctioned or only a few?
No fun poll, here, just some questions we may all be facing. I know that I do not have the answer.
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 18, 2005 16:15:27 GMT -6
Let's just fence. Let's fence a lot. Let's fence until our arms fall off. Then let's fence some more. Let's hold as many tournaments as the market will bear. If that's two per weekend, great. And sanction every one of them. Last I heard, this was a competitive sport, not FFPF. (Fun, Fair, Positive Fencing). No offense to FFPS, a fine developmental soccer program for the small fry, but unless we want to take this back to live steel, let's play this competitive game and get the rewards we earn. Ratings. Lets also count our blessings. Some people who love fencing and live in places where there is little to no fencing would love to be having this discussion. Like Augie says-get out and VOTE in the upcoming election...Vote for a little fencing, or vote for a lot of fencing. Phincer
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jul 18, 2005 21:10:48 GMT -6
Vote? The first post indicated the people who want us to fence fewer tournaments were the USFA reps. Are we to vote against the USFA?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Jul 18, 2005 22:30:39 GMT -6
Hummm... Let's see. Fifty two weeks in a year. That means 52 weekends. Probably couldn't get up much of a tournament on the weekend of Christmas, Easter, New Years, or Thanksgiving. So that's 48 tournaments a year (assuming only one tournament per weekend)! TOO COOL!
I have fenced on Father's day and Mother's day weekends, but that was on the Saturday before. Been to a Memorial day weekend tournament before. And many years ago, the Aggies didn't check the calendar and scheduled a tournament on Easter weekend, so me and a bunch of Aggies fenced. ;D
In an ideal world, nearby clubs would try to avoid scheduling tournaments on top of each other and go to the other club to fence. Then they are free to devote total attention to either running or fencing a tournament and not trying to do both; a bad idea which doesn't work very well. If two tournaments do collide, it's in the interest of both groups to schedule events on different days. I know I'd be more likely to make a road trip down if I can fence on two days in a row.
I started fencing back in the '70s. Back then clubs were few and far between, and ratings were very hard to get because there were so few rated fencers and few opportunities to get to fence in a rated tournament. YOU GUYS ARE SO LUCKY! Now there are more clubs in your Division alone than there were in the entire state back then! You could probably go to a tournament every weekend if you wanted and never leave your Division.
And I really fail to see what is wrong with holding small tournaments to provide people with the opportunity to earn a rating! Particularly for the kids! The older folks eventually will be gone and the kids are the next generation of fencers. (Unless you plan to be the LAST generation of fencers!) It's still going to be the best fencers that win ratings whether it's in youth or senior events. Rated fencers are generally more likely to go to more tournaments, and people often seek out tournaments just because there are rated fencers there to fence. THAT'S HOW FENCERS GET BETTER AND THAT'S HOW YOU GROW THE SPORT!
As far as being USFA sanctioned is concerned, if it's just a fun tournament for a few beginner kids in your club then no, because the expense is likely to chase them away from competing. Otherwise, sanction everything!
In the South Texas Division the procedure is simple; every tournament is presumptively sanctioned unless the organizers request otherwise. We rely on the organizers to avoid tournament collisions. Texas State accidentally scheduled a tournament recently against another one that UT had set long before, but didn't advertise very well. Texas State's organizers just moved their tournament to another date. No questions. No disputes. It was just done. That may not work for you, but it works for us.
Just my opinion, but I'm an outsider looking in. I can't vote in your Division, but how someone outside your area sees it may be something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 19, 2005 8:55:54 GMT -6
Aldo-in answer to your comment- YES! If it means going against a few USFA reps who haven't bothered to check up on our tournament schedule of last year and see that there can be two highly rated, well-attended tournaments in one weekend. All the poor USFA people see are the fencers vs. them that don't fence and run a club(s) for the $$$ they think they can make on fencing. They are busy sorting out our political mess. Longblade is right...each club can have beginner tournaments without ratings for their own members for practice, something I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) Augie does with his Youth Fencing League. The smalls get a chance to see what its like to fence 'for real'. As usual, someone else can say it better than I! thanks Longblade!!!
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jul 19, 2005 15:36:34 GMT -6
Many of you know my opinion, but I agree with Longblade. In the Houston Cup format, I asked every club to participate in the past and it will be open to all clubs in the future.
We plan on adding Div. II events and adding several levels for Fencing opportunities for everyone. If we had the interest we should add a wheelchair division. We only have 685 members in this division.
We have done these things as a division and section before, such as adding a beginner's circuit, (one year or less fencing per USFA manual).
I offer tournaments because I want to fence, I want my sons to fence and I want my students to fence. My wife does not fence, but she goes with the flow in the house. People are playing golf every weekend, there are pickup basketball games, etc. Why can't there be fencing tournaments?
Every tournament hosted by CLFC had 20 or more people. Kyle, Oscar and I can remember when having two pools was an excellent turnout. We need to keep that in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jul 19, 2005 16:49:42 GMT -6
No offence, seriously, BUT, if the USFA reps come down and say something like, "We only want each club to have two tournaments per year," how do we buck that?
For all it's anarchy, I have rathered enjoyed how this last season has unfolded. It seemed healthy.
It just seems like we can elect whom we wish to run our division, but if Colorado Springs decides to dictate terms, what do we do?
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jul 19, 2005 22:02:40 GMT -6
I am puzzled by the comments in this thread and I ask myself how can anyone be so blind or oblivious as to what really happened this tournament season. The issue is not how many tournaments we had, not even how many overlaps we had, but HOW it was done.In my opinion it was a combination of malice AND stupidity. Just to set the record straight, on or about September 16, 2004, the owners of two clubs, Salle Mauro and Bayou City, decided that the already announced schedule of the Houston Cup -- a cooperative venture between Alliance and Katy Blades and individual fencers from other clubs -- was much too good and that the best strategy was to schedule THEIR own tournaments right on top (I counted a total of 16 overlaps). Another proof that imitation is the best form of flattery... Calls for working together went unheeded. Requests not to sabotage each other went also unheeded. It was a classic "spitting" contest -- for lack of a better word -- to show who the powerhouse was in the division. Well, apologists notwithstanding using the "let the free market decide," it was a failure, and this is what the USFA's two representatives who had no bone in this fight, felt. But this is not the entire story. The big faux pas was when it was pointed out that the Divisional JO qualifier tournament did overlap the Richmond NAC tournament -- affecting 5 to 10 local fencers. The EC of the division, supported by the usual see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, talk-no-evil group decided that this was no big deal because changing it, would have inconvenienced some of the local clubs scheduling. Calls by many to change went unheeded using the idiotic argument that the by-laws did not specifically prohibit this to happen. When this was pointed out to the two USFA representatives, they were appalled and specifically asked who was responsible for this "dumb" and "stupid" (their words) decision. The silence from the chairman and the secretary of the division was deafening, leaving the impression that **** just happens in this division. It is not surprising therefore, that the USFA has taken a particular interest in this issue and wants to decree by fiat what cannot be agreed by logical and mature people.I believe that all this could be easily resolved by sitting around a table and put together a calendar which is a cooperative effort to benefit all fencers in the division, not one club against another. But to do this, one must sit at a table and openly discuss. This did not happen last year, nor has it happened yet. Lastly, all the petty arguments, discussions, delays to ratify local tournaments, threats of non sanctioning certain tournaments, innuendos of collusion between fencers, etc., were all part and parcel of the non cooperative and vindictive attitude this season. If you don't know who did what to whom, then read through the postings which appeared throughout the season on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jul 20, 2005 11:41:22 GMT -6
Let's just fence. Let's fence a lot. Let's fence until our arms fall off. Then let's fence some more. Thanks. I like your idea better than what anyone else has said in this thread.
|
|
SirKermit
Scribe
ohayo[ss:In the Murk]
Posts: 34
|
Post by SirKermit on Jul 20, 2005 13:12:40 GMT -6
I am for more tournaments all sactioned big and small.
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Jul 21, 2005 9:23:00 GMT -6
Forgive me, but NOT having the maximum number of tournaments offered by the maximum number of clubs is like starving to death because one is to lazy to open one's mouth...stupid and incomprehensible!
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Jul 21, 2005 14:24:23 GMT -6
Note that I am specifically NOT taking sides in this debate. However, it seems that there is a fair amount of instrangence and refusal to consdier alternate points of view and reasonings going on here. To say that one's own view is the only one worth considering and all others are stupid, pigheaded, incomprehensable, evil, malicious, etc, is not only poor debating tactics, its highly counter-productive to the actual goal of reaching some sort of consensus on a decision.
Consider, why don't you that there may in fact be very good reasons why having two "sanctioned" events in the same division on the same day isn't neccessarily the best idea, from the USFA's point of view. Please note, I don't say that this is the "right" or the "best" or even "the most appropriate for the Houston area." I'm simply pointing out that a different point of view exists, and its one that is not without its own merit, and at least worth considering the reasoning behind, before totally dismissing it, and saying that its not applicable to the Gulf Coast because of some special standing particular to that division.
The USFA allows a rather wide degree of lattitude in how Divisions conduct their internal affairs, and only steps in when things reach a really bad state, or could affect matters outside that Division. With regard to the sanctioning status of events, there are almost as many protocols as there are Divisions in the USFA. However, consider if you will that that USFA considers the Division to be the operative local governing unit of the USFA. It does NOT consider the club to be this. It is worthwhile, yes, to have the discussion of weather or not this is appropriate, however, that is a conversation to be held gobally. In fact, many, many people would agree that the USFA is long overdue for a restructuring of governance and qualifers, but until that restructuring occurs, one is constrained by the fundementals of the system as its currently set up. Telling the appointed reps of the USFA to pound sand is not probably something that is in your best interest.
And since the USFA considers the Division to be the local operating governance unit, there is logic under that paradigm to have a single sanctioned event per division within the local unit. This is not wrongheaded or evil, its a function of the current operating system of the USFA. In fact, there are a number of very large and successful divisions where individual clubs are not involved in running sanctioned events at all! All sanctioned events are run by the division itself. Most divisions, however, essentially contract with individual clubs to run sanctioned events.
Again, by having the Division be the local organizing unit of the USFA, it is envisioned that the entire division will come together, bring all their resources to bear together for a single tournament at a time in order to best serve the fencing population (bout committee, referees, equipment, etc). Not an evil, or lazy, or stupid way of doing things, merely consistent with the governance structure of the USFA. Under that structure, it could be foreseeable to seperate events into different venues and locales at the same time, provided the events do not seek to serve the same population of fencers AND the resources to run them both are readily available.
Just a few thoughts by an outside observer. Again, not seeking to take sides, merely to point out some of the ground rules that exist. Hey, as anyone who knows me can testify, I've got my own issues with the national adminstration, but ignoring them or saying that the guidelines they issue are pointless just isn't going to get you very far. Yes, the USFA is overdue for an overhaul in governance and tournament adminstration at the regional/local level, but that is a discussion that needs to be had globally, not just in one small corner of one state, no matter how unique things seem down there from an internal viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jul 21, 2005 18:24:28 GMT -6
Thank you, David, for your thoughts and getting the topic back on track. Given that I rarely compete anymore, take this for what it's worth.
Rumors seem to have it that the USFA will place a cap of some sort on tournaments, either so many per club or one per weekend or some such. No doubt the division will ultimately comply. I agree that telling the USFA to, "pound sand," will not help anyone's cause.
My concern is that, while it looks like some clubs rarely hold tournaments, if ever (St. Thomas? Knights of Trapani?) others seem to have held a half dozen or more (I did not actually count).
Given the acrimony expressed here and elsewhere and a general derision given to what sound like would-be peacemakers, I fear ever more venomous fights over such allotments as may be made.
I'm glad I'm letting my USFA membership run out this year.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jul 22, 2005 8:16:43 GMT -6
I suggest keeping membership. You say you compete rarely, but that's different from "never."
I also rarely compete. I mostly fence at some clubs, but keep up my membership.
Back to the topic at hand. Has anyone heard anything from Donald Alperstein at the USFA, yet? Will the new rules/bylaws limit our tournaments and, if so, how?
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jul 22, 2005 8:50:13 GMT -6
David,
Those are good thoughts on the tournaments, and specifically the USFA was upset that the JO qualifiers were scheduled on top of the NAC. We have the NAC schedule, so that "should" not happen again. The people that scheduled that event did not answer or speak at the meeting with Don and Gerri when questioned about this "stupid" decision.
What about weekends when no events are scheduled? What if we have a period of two months in the division when no events are scheduled for a specific group? How do Us, Ds and Es improve their skills or even decide if they like fencing when there are no events. Last year was an adventure the beginning of the year, but at least people began to fence each other from the area. We had fencers fly in from Al and other areas when we had two foil tournaments in town on different days. That is definitely a good thing.
We had last year a result of not having enough opportunity for the right fencers to fence. I don't mean people like myself, but I mean our future as an organization. The youth and young adults. If we hook these fencers in fencing as a fun lifetime event, our organization will be double in size in two to three years.
The RYCs are great for this, but there are not enough in an area. I had many new fencers that wanted to compete but had other committments to make this their first tournament. I saw someone mention the Katy Youth Fencing League, and I do offer a tournament at the end of this session. They LOVE IT, and the Parents bring grandparents and friends. That has been what has grown the club in the past six months.
|
|
|
Post by staciared2 on Jul 22, 2005 9:19:40 GMT -6
I hope , as far as youth tournaments, deference is given to the Houston Cup tournaments. Without the Houston Cup there are very few Y-10 and Y-12 tournaments around. My sincere hope, as a parent of a budding youth fencer, is a couple of clubs are not given the opportunity to stop the Houston Cup from being all that it can be because they don't want to be part of the Houston Cup. I think these things should strongly be considered when discussing how many tournaments and when. The youth don't get to vote so I would hate to see them shut out.
Stacia
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Jul 22, 2005 23:14:52 GMT -6
By no means do I wish to be a wet blanket on the youth tournys; but I feel its also important to have unranked and low-rank only tournys so the begining ADULTS have a learning ground too. Last Wednesday I talked to an ex-beginer adult fencer who told me he just couldn't handle being beaten up so badly each open fencing night. Our club has like 6 A's and several B's, and it's dang hard for a beginer to come in and every night get his head handed to him by young folks half his age. In my early, recreational fencing days, I truly enjoyed going to low-ranked tournys, where I wasn't blown out of the pools only to lose my only DE to the 1st or 2nd ranked fencer there. I think the occasional un-or-low-ranked OPEN meet will be a hit with up and coming fencers young and old.
|
|
|
Post by staciared2 on Jul 23, 2005 7:19:20 GMT -6
Agreed, Captain Jon. My thought, though maybe not well written, is if the USFA severely limits how many tournaments a club can host or how many tournaments can be held on a weekend, etc. then everyone loses. If more than one tournament falls on a weekend, that is fine if the clubs communicate and schedule events so that folks can fence in both. I think limiting tournaments for no specific purpose would be a mistake. If the USFA severely limits how many tournaments can be held then, you are correct, each end of the spectrum will get left out because there won't be enough tournaments to cater to the entire field of fencers.
Stacia -who will have a family membership for next year so I have a vote.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jul 30, 2005 17:37:29 GMT -6
My money is on looking to the USFA to encourage the division itself to host everything. You think our politics were ugly before? Wait until the division chair has complete say in what tournaments happen when.
For a fact, the USFA will not want us to hold tournaments opposite NACS and SSCCs and not opposite each other, so... I guess we all make do this season with 2-3 tournaments.
We all want our own clubs to be able to hold all the tournaments we can. We just don't want THE OTHER GUY to have the same priviledge, because his tournament might be opposite our own.
oops. Pardon my cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 30, 2005 18:46:01 GMT -6
Last minute electioneering won't help in this case I'm afraid. We've all made up our minds. See ya at the vote tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 30, 2005 22:24:30 GMT -6
Strange. The closer we get to the election, the more I find myself reviewing each possibility.
I am not so set in my opinion and reserve the right to change my mind and be convinced by another point of view.
I envy you your certainty in the wisdom of the decision you have made.
|
|