|
Post by schlager7 on May 6, 2005 8:20:25 GMT -6
I will answer Terry Harkey's email, because once again she has not told the truth. The Houston Sports Association is NOT a contract, it is the group the manages Reliant Stadium, Toyota Center and others by bringing top sporting events to Houston. Just for what it is worth, a small correction. The post Augie refers to (from Scott, not Terry, Harkey) makes reference to Mr. Skopiks HSA "contact" (as in people who will listen and talk to you), not "contract" (as in a formal agreement). It was a simple and easy error, but the word differences change the entire meaning of Scott Harkey's original message, thus any rebuttal. Also, in an earlier post, Giorgio notes, as have some others, that we have gotten into attacks and not kept to the immediate issue of the election. We all now know why some of us intend to vote for the slate listed by David Sierra and why some of us will not. Back to my question, other than the slate of candidates proposed by David Sierra in the first post of this thread [glow=red,2,300]To support these efforts, an excellent slate of potential officers possessing experience and leadership has been assembled. Standing for election to continue as Treasurer and Secretary will be Anjea Earle Ray of Austin, Texas and Terry Harkey of Shreveport, Louisiana, respectively. Both have been critical components of the successes of recent years. Jerry Benson will stand again for election as Representative to the USFA Board of Directors, providing an excellent voice for our Section in the National Leadership. Joining the team will be Rachel El-Salah of Houston, Texas, as Vice-Chair and Commissioner of the SSCC, bringing with her valuable leadership experience and positive vision. [/glow] who else is running?
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 6, 2005 9:01:17 GMT -6
I want to make a general comment.
Open debate is a very good thing and it is good to see such devotion but I think we need to try and NOT make it too personal. It sounds ludicrous at times to say, "it's nothing personal" when it very well may be Personal to us. Granted emotions and personal feelings run deep for most of us when it comes to fencing but making it about THE person and not their ideas is not constructive.
I lock horns with David and Scott and a bunch of other folks as well and TRY not to cross the "cheap shot" line. I would hope that at the end of the day all of us could still sit across the table from each other and have a beer and talk about other things with no ill will towards each other. Or better yet get on strip and fence leaving all the animosities behind
The Bottom line is that we are all fighting for what we strongly believe is best for the sport.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
See you in Houston.
Richard Exnicios
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 6, 2005 10:17:33 GMT -6
The reason I wanted to make certain that the HSA agreement was clear that it was not a contract is that I have provided the contacts. Scott also has the contacts, and why hasn't he provided that to division clubs? I have helped clubs in different divisions when I had contact information that would help them. He personally had this contact, at least with email. That is where a half-truth is so dangerous.
I have provided the contacts to anyone that wants them, that is why it is so dangerous to imply differently. It gives the impression that there is an agenda of greed and deceit.
The agenda is plain. Grow fencing and help fencing grow. Sorry, but that is it in the grass roots. I don't make ANY money from the contact. I don't get any celebrity, except when I am written about on this site.
What I found is that if you do a quality job then people want to work with you again.
For those that do not know, the Gulf Coast Division has a rotation of whom can host the qualifiers, JOs and SSCC. I was the first club selected when it came about originally, but since I was on the board I declined and dropped to the last on the list. This time Katy Blades came up again as other clubs declined. I had no choice of JOs or qualifiers, so I either had to select the SSCC or go to the bottom of the club list again. The HSA would work with any reasonable group that was promoting sport in the Houston area, and I have found they have been very reasonable and very, very professional. This idea has come to a head at this time because of Gulf Coast Division policies, as well as the Section officer's decision.
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 6, 2005 10:21:31 GMT -6
I want to make a general comment. Open debate is a very good thing and it is good to see such devotion but I think we need to try and NOT make it too personal. It sounds ludicrous at times to say, "it's nothing personal" when it very well may be Personal to us. Granted emotions and personal feelings run deep for most of us when it comes to fencing but making it about THE person and not their ideas is not constructive. I lock horns with David and Scott and a bunch of other folks as well and TRY not to cross the "cheap shot" line. I would hope that at the end of the day all of us could still sit across the table from each other and have a beer and talk about other things with no ill will towards each other. Or better yet get on strip and fence leaving all the animosities behind The Bottom line is that we are all fighting for what we strongly believe is best for the sport. I'll get off my soapbox now. See you in Houston. Richard Exnicios Richard, And belive me, the public restraint you have displayed on this forum and others has been noticed AND appreciate. While you and I might disagree strongly over a couple of issues, I believe it is possible for us also to discuss them in a rational way, without resorting to the tactics that seem to be so prevalant (aside from the occational slip). I am concerned about Tulane's interpretation of Title 9 compliance, because it has large ramifications for other schools. NCAA's are an event with Men's and Women's events. So are the USA National Collegiate Club Championships (or some similar thing to that, I'm not quite exactly sure how they refer to themselves), which is a championship event of clubs that participate on the club level. No Mixed events are held at these competitions! Also does Tulane allow or grant a waiver for its fencers to compete in Division Qualifiers? What about Section Qualifiers? Each of these events has no Mixed events. Are you aware of any other universities with fencing programs on either the club or varsity level which have similar rulings, or are considering imposing them? What about high schools? I myself have the possibility of starting up a couple of high school clubs associated with my main enterprise, and if I'm not totally off base, doesn't Title 9 impact them too? Then there is the aside of why is fencing seemingly the only sport in which this is an issue? Men and Women compete in seperate divisons in every NCAA sport I'm aware of (except for shooting? I seem to recall some mention that sport is not separated by sex). Finally, I do see a way for us to return Mixed competition to SSCC events, if the Executive Committee truely wants to go that route. I think the best way to do this would be to have three Mixed Open events and three Mixed Y14 (or possibly cadet? junior?) events, and then base the point standings for the sexes off the results of those events (we'd probably also need to only give awards to the top 3 point holders in each list, instead of the top 6). This would remove the sepertate Women's Events from SSCC status which I think is not a positive direction to go. This approach has been discussed, but utimately was discarded in favor of the current approach. However, we can think again about moving in that direction, and discuss the ins and outs. David P.S. Snyone who had participated in the SSCC planning meetings for the past 3 years would know that there has been extensive discussion of how to deal with the growth curve. Why do you think there have been so many referee clinics held, and referees added to the available cadre? Why do you think additional technical committee people have been identified and trained? Why do you think there is an effort to provide the SSCC events with the highest caliber equipment possible, including grounded strips, when available? Why do you think so much time has been spent on tournament operations, in order to efficiently run the events? Even with larger events now, SSCC events still finish much earlier than they used to. We've not had an event run until 10pm or midnight for quite some time now, and I for one think this is a positive development! P.P.S. Terry is not the only one who sees the future of the USFA as a more regionally-focused organization. The current national leadership may be composed of folks who aren't so hot on the idea, but there are many people across the country who are, and I'm proud to say I'm one of them. Weather or not the SSCC is used as a model for this or not, we are recognized as having one of the best Section Circuits out there by the athletes who compete in them.
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 6, 2005 10:23:56 GMT -6
Then there is the aside of why is fencing seemingly the only sport in which this is an issue? Men and Women compete in seperate divisons in every NCAA sport I'm aware of (except for shooting? I seem to recall some mention that sport is not separated by sex). Also, I'm really not trying to sound snippy here, but more trying to get a feel for the logic and reasoning that Tulane's NCAA Compliance office is using.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 6, 2005 11:27:33 GMT -6
I figure I will post this now before anyone notices and jumps to a conclusion.
At the request of members of the Executive Committee of the Southwest Section, I have done something I rarely do, broken out the "censor's scissors."
An earlier post included a representation of the vote by the SWS EC on the Katy Blades request to host the Gulf Coast Division's contribution to the SSCC.
I have no doubt the person posting the information believed it to be accurate.
However, I have been approached by members of the EC and asked to either delete the entire post (a bit drastic) or, at least, remove the names from the vote roster. I have complied with the second request based on two points.
1. The vote of the EC on such matters is supposed to be secret, to prevent political pressure from being exerted on them from without and allow them to vote according to conscience. While I prefer transparant voting, this is, in fact, the system as it stands.
2. I have been approached by some (more than one, I will NOT give a number) on the EC who have assured me the tally as posted was incorrect. To have pressure brought upon a person because of how they voted is one matter. To subject them to undue pressure for voting one way when they did, in fact, vote the other is doubly wrong.
Anyone who has followed this site for any length of time can attest to how rarely I act. If I were inclined to only allow posts I favored, the many that have taken me or my friends to task would not still be up and available for all to read.
I take this task, which I set upon myself, seriously.
Let me also commend those posting on this thread for the relative civility employed, given the passionate feelings that drive this thread.
Augie, Terry and David know well that I as frequently agree as disagree with each of them. I have had few conversations with Richard or Scott. Then, as Mark Twain once said, "It is the difference of opinion that makes a horse race."
Oh, and while I am on-line, can I ask, again, if anyone knows of any others running for office? (I'll go hide now.)
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 6, 2005 13:33:11 GMT -6
David, Bravo! You say it so much better than I do...I tend to put my tongue firmly in my cheek when I make comments about what RE and AS post.
August, I was not a volunteer. I was a paid armorer. My food was provided. I was not whining about my situation. LL only had the vouchers that the HSA would give her. There were 12 strips with 2 helpers at each strip and ushers at every cross point. These were the volunteers I was speaking about. I WAS NOT AND I AM NOT JEALOUS OF YOU OR YOUR POSITION IN THE WORLD OF FENCING. It was just an observation that was made by many in the venue.
I didn't call RE a name, maybe you misread what I wrote. Unless you are refering to the "dogs of law", with my tongue firmly in my cheek I was referring to all in his profession. I don't take this stuff as seriously as you do I guess. RE knows that, if you would have someone read you his posts you would understand that he and I trade comments from time to time. No offence personally intended and non-taken. I do find it curious that you think that I have anything to do with what my wifes writes or that she has anything to do with what I write. She is actually very independent in that regard and most everything else. But I have never known her to be involved with the telling of half truths or out right lies...I have known her for 25 years and if she is one thing it is brutally honest. I would rethink the position you are taking on her and take another look at what you are evidently mis reading. She is for nothing but the fairest and most just way of doing things and she is all about promoting the sport. The NCAAFC was a successful event. It took a lot of hard work on the part of your Div Chair. She had tried to help me get the contract for the strip rental, since I am with in a few hours of Houston and I do have strips to rent. But it boiled down to the fact that monies had been spent elsewhere (GRB Convention Center rental) and there was just non available for the rental of the strips (although they have a contract with BG for the machines.) These have been provided in the past by the sponsoring school, but since Rice was not an NCAA school (fencing wise) and they did not have any to lend, the NCAA had to get them from another source. Northwestern ended up shipping down 12 strips for the event. I had also wanted a hold harmless agreement in the contract and the young lady who was handling the deal for the NCAA was not comfortable signing the agreement on such a short notice without refering it to the legal department. Now...is anyone else running for a section office or will this just be a big suprise when we all get to Houston?
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 6, 2005 15:14:08 GMT -6
Scott,
Then I have to say you have been given inaccurate information regarding the strips. Two local fencing coaches and club representatives were in the HSA office when this information surfaced, and heard the speaker conference call between the NCAAs and HSA. The NCAAs is well versed in the strip rental, since many hosting schools do not have their own supply of 12 grounded strips and/or 12 sets of working scoring sets. They compared arrangements that were being forced upon them to historical patterns and were upset. By they, I am referring to the NCAA committee.
Please understand that there is a different side to the story you are representing, and I visually saw and heard those pieces. I strongly disagree with how they are presented. This presentation has been a pattern in this division, and while the presentation may not stop I don't have to sit here and act like it does not happen any longer.
We owe it to the sport, and our own personal integrity to at least make certain what the truth is before we spread these stories.
I believe you have been told your side of the story and that is based on the best information you have. It is not the complete information, nor is it accurate. We all will need to consider the source.
I recently posted the voting representation from the EC on the web, and it was censored as not being accurate. I received it from the SSCC commissioner, who is running for chair, in an electronic email. If the vote was not accurate, what was the vote?
I made the mistake in my first fencing position as club president to have closed meetings, and I quickly changed my position. It turned out that when you do what is the best for fencing, fencers will support you even in hard decisions.
If I did not receive accurate information from the current SSCC chairman then I will need to consider the source in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 6, 2005 15:17:42 GMT -6
NCAA Compliance.
There are two guidlines at issue Title nine and anti discrimination/gender equity
Without going into days of discussion.
Title 9 Title 9 is about money. Yes the events at NCAA are segregated but the schools that send male or female atheletes to these events are under there own title nin complaince plan based on percentage of female students and the percentage of money spent on male vs female athelets. This is why we see schools with a women's program and no men's program.
Schools are either under a compliance guidline or follow one that has been set inturnally. There are multiple ways to be in compliance.
I cannot speak to schools compliance policy but what Tulane does is financial equity. And they extend that to all funded sports regardless of varsity status. Tulane has more females than male students.
There are exceptions for National events but in short if there are women's and men's events we must send them to events of equal size and quality (for lack of a better description) So yes we technicly can send teams to segregated events but we would have to find events for the women that are the same as those for the men.
Gender Equity.
Part of title nine and also an independent guidline is gender equity. Tulane like many universities have a very strong gender equity policy.
In short gender equity is about opportunity. that is where mixed becomes VERY important. If we are using university finds to send fencers to competitions they need to have the same or equal oportunity. (i.e chance to earn rating). NACs and Nationals have equal minimum ratings so equity is not a problem and qualifiers to those events by extension also are not a problem. (yet)
as for other schools and ramifications. If I could answer that I would be very Rich! Every school or program is different. For Example Tulane University is a Private University that was established as a public university that receives significant research money from the fed as a private scholl but also money from the state as a "state" school. Religous Schools have a somewhat different arrangement. Then to make it all the more confussing there are the federal tax res governing what 501(c)3 entites can do based on there particular filing classification. Confussed yet? i am! That is why all universities have at least one lawyer and sometimes an entire staff that does nothing but NCAA compliance.
There is a case in California that mandates title nine like compliance on other entites. A number of states have also passed gender equity laws in various degrees. There is a push by a number of national groups to greatly expand title nine and gender equity.
I think fencing flys below the radar at most schools so it is not a problem but as our sport grows and gets more attention gender equity will become a very big issue.
The IOC has a gender mandate that may cause some real upsets come July 8th when they decide what sports stay and what sports go in the 2012 Olympic Games. (No, I do not know anything specific about that!)
I could go on but i think everyone reading this fell asleep.
R
|
|
|
Post by giorgio Bassa on May 6, 2005 16:19:18 GMT -6
..... At the request of members of the Executive Committee of the Southwest Section, I have done something I rarely do, broken out the "censor's scissors." ..... I have been approached by members of the EC and asked to either delete the entire post (a bit drastic) or, at least, remove the names from the vote roster. I have complied with the second request based on two points. 1. The vote of the EC on such matters is supposed to be secret, to prevent political pressure from being exerted on them from without and allow them to vote according to conscience. While I prefer transparant voting, this is, in fact, the system as it stands. 2. I have been approached by some (more than one, I will NOT give a number) on the EC who have assured me the tally as posted was incorrect. To have pressure brought upon a person because of how they voted is one matter. To subject them to undue pressure for voting one way when they did, in fact, vote the other is doubly wrong. ........ as Mark Twain once said, "It is the difference of opinion that makes a horse race." ........ A difference of opinionSchlager, I very much like the quote by Mark Twain as to what makes a horse race. You interfere by censoring, and you start fixing the race, which I don't think YOU want to do, but the people that pressured you certainly want to do. Hence, you become, in my opinion, their accomplisher and/or stooge. Let me present my opinion why your censorship was not called for, using your two reasons why instead you felt that you had to do it. 1. The secrecy of the votesLike you I prefer open voting. If this was not the case, I am confident that Augie did not plant a bug on the EC and elicit this "confidential" information illegally nor improperly. It was contained in a e-mail by one of the people (identified) in the know and allegedly voting, and reporting the outcome of the votes falsely, if the members of the EC pressuring you to censor are to be believed. Now I call this a fine group of people who really does not need your help to keep their deeds secret! If one, or more of the people voting felt it was OK to share this information with Augie, that's fine with me, and it should be fine with you, the -- I hope -- impartial observer. 2. The inaccuracy of the reported vote tallyYou want to protect the voting members from undue pressure by the rest of us caused by an inaccurate report. If I was one of the voters and my vote was misrepresented, I'd speak for myself and declare that it was incorrect, thereby casting a shadow of doubt about the accuracy of the entire report. Anyone and everyone has the right to speak his own mind and either say what they did, or not say what they did, or deny the veracity of what is being circulated, or just let it go because of irrelevance. But what you did, with your, in my opinion, uncalled for intervention, you just made an attempt to 'fix' a race. Since I don't believe that you wanted to do so, I hope that next time you will refrain from this type of censorship and interference.
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 6, 2005 16:23:39 GMT -6
Richard,
Okay, when you put it in that sense it does actually make some sort of sense and logic, but perhaps we could figure something here that might change the minds of your compliance office.
So, SSCC events are, by definition, a "regional" enterprise, where the opportunity to fence competitors from a broader geographical area is presented. At SSCC events, the relative percentage of fencers from different geographical regions between men's and women's events is pretty even. For this season, looking at the top 6 point holders in the events (which I have handy, so that what I'm gonna use now, but I might try to expand this out further) heres the representation. Men's : NTX - 5, STX - 5, GC - 5, OK - 1, ALM - 1. Women's : NTX - 8, STX - 3, GC - 2, OK - 2, ALM - 3. So, roughly an equal opportunity to fence the best people from the region.
Additionally, comparing entries with number of ratings earned here is what we come up with First column is number of entries second is number of new or 'upped' ratings third is number of new ratings fourth is percentage entries earning a new or 'upping a rating fifth is precentage of entries earning a new rating
Longhorn Men 185 17 12 0.092 0.064 Women 86 6 4 0.069 0.046 OZ Men 117 3 3 0.025 0.025 Women 39 4 4 0.102 0.102 Space City Men 63 4 0 0.06 0 Women 37 4 3 0.108 0.081 Rose Condon Men 120 10 3 0.083 0.025 Women 61 9 7 0.147 0.114 Grand Prix Men 92 9 5 0.097 0.0543 Women 51 7 4 0.137 0.078
and the averages for Men 115.4 8.6 4.6 0.072 0.033 Women 54.8 6 4.4 0.113 0.084
The good news is its apparently easier for a woman to earn a rating than a guy. The bad news is the numbers are not "significantly" different (I put significant in quotes because it means something special to those of us who do statistics for a living). So, relatively equal.
Okay, so what about the number of new ratings earned in each of the categories?
A's Men 2 Women 1 B's Men 3 Women 4 C's Men 3 Women 3 D's Men 5 Women 6 E's Men 7 Women 7
I invite everyone to check my numbers on the results on FRED, as I did this in a bit of a rush, but unless I'm seriously off, it appears that we're pretty equal in the SSCC with respect to "competitive opportunity."
There is one other measure that I've looked at and that is number of bouts fenced. I don't have these numbers with me, as I did the analysis some time ago (but would need to update it with this season's numbers), but here is the rough gist. Everyone fences the same number of pool bouts. The difference between a tournament of 64 fencers and a tournament of 32 fencers is one additional DE bout for 2 people. Half of the people are still only going to get to fence 1 DE bout. A quarter will get to fence 2. An eighth will get to fence 3 - and so on. Basically, again, its within the margin of error.
So, what other cateogry of opportunity can there be? Sheer numbers? The Men's events are just going to be bigger than the Women's events, there's nothing we can do about that. I THINK though, and I don't have the data with me, that when you compare average turnout to size of available field (i.e. number of competitive members) the numbers are relatively equal.
This is real life, not some abstract study. There is no way to achieve absolute number-for-number equality in a chaotic (used in the scientific sense) system like this. What IS possible is to achieve comparative equality, factoring in relative size, within a margin of error. To aim for anything else is impractical. I deal with issues of comparing data and finding statistically meaningful differences between datasets all the time as a bioinformatician, and its important to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If you're going to compare apples to oranges, then you need to normalize by some factor that the data sets have in common (which in this case is size of the competitive pool).
So, hey, present THIS data to your compliance officer and see what he/she says.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 6, 2005 21:19:54 GMT -6
Giorgio:
How many posts critical of me have you posted which remain for all to read? How many times have you launched into my friends, like Matt? Those are all still present.
What I did, I did after much soul-searching on my part. If you disagree, too bad. Sometimes, I can't take you into my every confidence. Sorry.
As to the"fixing the race" analogy, that phrase implies I had an effect on the outcome. The vote on the Katy Blades was a fait accompli before this thread began.
If you refer to the upcoming elections, you still have a week until this race concludes. Fix that race? Hey, I'm not THAT good.
Besides, so far it still seems that David's slate is running unopposed.
You and I may BOTH have issues with the Section's secret ballot, BUT that is change to be made by lawful and legitimate vote... or do you suggest we simply toss out such rules as we disapprove of on an individual basis?
Don't stretch the Mark Twain reference too far. I merely used it in reference to my occasional differences of opinion with David, Terry and Augie.
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 6, 2005 21:55:18 GMT -6
David
I like the earning new ratings data but the test is opportunity not results. If the test becomes result driven we would all be screwed.
The women's events almost always 2 classes lower, the exception is normally Epee.
Long horn. Epee was prety equal Men's: A4 event, Women's A2 Foil & Saber were another story Foil. M:B2, W:C2 Saber. M:B2, W:D1
The Oz Epee M: A2 , W: B1 Foil. M:A2, W:E1 Saber. M:B1, W:E1
Space City Epee again not much of a problem. M: A2 , W: A1 Foil. M:B1, W:C2 Saber. M:B1, W:E1
The Rose Epee no problem. M: A2 , W: A2 Foil. M:A2, W:C1 Saber. M:A2, W:D1
Gand Prix Epee again not much of a problem. M: A4 , W: A4 Foil. M:A2, W:C2 Saber. M:B1, W:D1
again not saying anything against the tournaments.
R
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 6, 2005 23:41:37 GMT -6
Richard,
I'd agree that the critical question is opportunity, and that focusing soley on results is counterproductive. But I think its also worthwhile to question what is the best measure of opportunity, and how does opportunity translate into actual results. The two go hand in hand, as I see it. Opportunity provides the context in which to evaluate the results and results provide a meaningful measure of the degree to which the opportunity was take advantage of. The flaw I see in your measure is that there can be no "equality" unless rigid formulas are adhered to, and short of national events, is pracitcally impossible. And I also think that is implies things about certain events that are difficult. We all know that not every tournament that is rated the same is identical in "strength" or "competition" or whatever else it is that we're trying to measure/evaluate/figure out, even within a weapon and sex.
In this particular case, a tournament of a particular rating may give by one measure a particular type of opportunity to earn a rating, however, by a more nuanced measure, one must also consider the opportunity to earn a rating when all the fencers who are currently rated can be considered.
For example, let us consider a C1 rated event. According to the book, 1st gets a C, 2-4th Ds and 5-8 E's. However, a C1 rated event also requires at least 2 C's, 2D's and 2E's. In addtion 2C's and 2D's must finish in the top 8. Furthermore, many C1 rated events have more than the required number of C's, D's and E's and it may not be that any ratings are actuallly earned! So, I would argue that the best measure of "opportunity" would be to examine a set of related tournaments, and measure how many actual ratings were earned. This data could be used to predict future opportunties for that set of tournaments and other similar events, as well as be compared with ratings earned for different sets of tournaments. For example, how many SWS fencers earn ratings in the SSCC vs at National events? Or in our specific case, is the opportunity for Women to earn ratings the same as that of Men and is there equal opportunity for competitive advancement?
I would then measure "results" differently. Results would be how well a particular competitor or team took advantage of the opportunity figured above. I'd have to think a bit about an objective measure of that, but it could either be a simple "yes you earned one, no you didn't" or a more complex "you fenced in this aggregate of events, at which the following 'opportunity ratio' was available, and despite/as a result of these placings, you did/did not earn a rating, and you should focus on events with a higher/lower opportunity ratio."
The underlying premise of course in the points of view we've both presented is that ratings are the best measure of both a tournament's and an individual athlete's success. Which is another matter entirely, but in a nutshell, I'd say no, they're not, one must also consider a variety of other factors.
David
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 6, 2005 23:53:24 GMT -6
DS, I wonder what the strength of the women's events would be if the ones who are not coming because they are not mixed were to come? I guess we will never know.... AS, I was not forcing anything upon anybody...I was looking at having to give up a week of my time babysitting 12 strips. If I was going to have to do that then it was going to cost the figure that I quoted them. I didn't want the liability of someone being injured handling, laying or fencing on them. It was their decision to do something different. As fate would have it, Ron had family issues that he had to attend to so he asked me if I would go in his sted to work as an armorer for the tournament. I ended up making 1 tenth what I was planning on charging for the strip rental and still spending a week away from two businesses babysitting someone elses crawling copper strips. I did this out of a since of respect and cooperation for Ron. I did have a great time, got to see some of the best of the best fence, and learned a whole lot about how the NCAA works. I don't know what "pieces", "presentations" or "patterns" you are talking about. As far as the previous deals on strips, I got it straight from the NCAA rep that it was not their custom to rent those, but that they were supplied by the host college in most instances or loaned by one of the member schools for a small fee. Northwestern was paid $100 per strip for the week. If that is not true, then that is who spread the "misinformation". No one "told" me anything, I was in contact with the rep for the NCAA and HSA via email. The only "source" I have is myself since I was the one who was involved. The only thing the organizer did was get me in contact with the NCAA and HSA to give them my bid. I even met with Don P. at JO's to discuss the strip size and placement. Everything seem to be fine until I put the Hold Harmless clause in the contract. That is when things started to go south. Unfortunately, I have had to put that in my rental contracts to protect myself from lawsuits possibly resulting from injuries associated with the handling, laying and use of the strips.
Now....so who else is running for a section office, or do we not get a chance to teardown there character before next weekend??
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 7, 2005 16:57:25 GMT -6
DS
Those are all good points but how do you reconcil that the strength of the men's events are so much higher than the womens.
A women foilist for example would have no opportunity to earn anything higher than a C and a male foilist has the opportunity to earn an A.
A solution that many other tournament in other sections have done is that the events are men's and women's but women can fence in the Men's events if the women's event is not he same size and stregnth.
When women first started fencing epee and saber most tournaments had 4 events men's foil, women's foil, Men's epee and Men's saber. Women had to push to get into the "men's" events if they wanted to fence at all.
I'm not saying it's fair to the guys but most tournaments have much higher men's events than women's so the women have a lessoned oportunity and women in fencing are a historicly discriminated class. Women's saber just made it to the Olympics last year!
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 7, 2005 22:22:26 GMT -6
Richard, Without wanting to seem insensitive, let me advance some points that people have raised in counterpoint to what you're saying. First though, let me say that my own personal views fall somewhere between yours and the other extreme - I recognize the fact that women's fencing should be both developed and encouraged, and I'm willing to experiment with different formulas to get there. We tried it your way for three years, and the results were a disapointment, to me at least, as I would like to have seen Women's events at SSCC events grow at near the same rate as Men's events, which did not happen. So, lets at least try it this way for a couple of seasons before we say it didn't work. Okay, so points that have been raised in counterpoint to what you just said. Those are all good points but how do you reconcil that the strength of the men's events are so much higher than the womens. A women foilist for example would have no opportunity to earn anything higher than a C and a male foilist has the opportunity to earn an A. How do you reconcile the strength of epee events being so much higher than sabre events in our region? An epee fencer has the opportunity to earn an A at almost any event. A sabre fencer is lucky if there is the chance to earn a B. A solution that many other tournament in other sections have done is that the events are men's and women's but women can fence in the Men's events if the women's event is not he same size and stregnth. Identical size and strength? If so this determination could be subject to a single person skewing the results. Allowing a single person to dramatically alter this determination is patently unfair. Also, an organizing committee could potentially have to add double the amount of pools and referees that it was planning to run. When women first started fencing epee and saber most tournaments had 4 events men's foil, women's foil, Men's epee and Men's saber. Women had to push to get into the "men's" events if they wanted to fence at all. I'm not saying it's fair to the guys but most tournaments have much higher men's events than women's so the women have a lessoned oportunity and women in fencing are a historicly discriminated class. Women's saber just made it to the Olympics last year! And how long do you grant protected status in the face of historical data? What is the exact objective (and realistic) goal to achieve? What intermediate goals should be set up? When the SSCC was set up, some people argued against the clear establishment of seperate women's events saying that they should only be held if 6 or more women register. I and others said, "schedule the events and the competitors will show. It may take a couple of years, but its going to happen." I see this discussion as an extention of that philosophy. Its a question of how to best grow women's fencing. My long range goal for the SSCC is regular competitions of A strength with at least 32 competitors in all events, both men and women. My immediate goal is to at least have the growth curves for men and women be relatively equal, and have men and women earning new ratings at relatively the same rate at SSCC events. I estimate it will take 3 seasons of the current paradigm to determine if we're on the right track (just as it took 3 seasons under the previous methodology to determine that we weren't). If we can achive that immediate goal, then we need to take stock again and see what additional steps we need to take to achieve the long range one. Note that many of the "extras" of the SSCC I've supported, like increased tournament professionalism, referee development, equality of end of the season prizes, all are included in the methodology of supporting the immediate and long range goals. If you have a different idea of where we should be heading, please, elucidate it. I'd also be interested in what methodologies you'd include, and what intermediate steps you'd take to get there. Its not enough to simply say, "I disagree with where we're heading." Tell me where you'd go instead, why and how. I very well might be interested.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on May 8, 2005 1:29:23 GMT -6
OK so what happens if we require Ladies who wish to fence in the "mens" event to fence in the Ladies event for the chance at the higher ratings/tougher opponents "mixed events"? Lets face it--this is a sport in which many of the "fair sex" can stomp the snot out of most young men and old farts with no problem.(have you ever fenced Brita G. or one of the Hurly-Girlys?) Lets say if they want to fence the guys, they HAVE to fence in the womens event, end of story, or be disqualified from both. I have 4 sisters, 2 girls of my own, and a wife, so perhaps I have a unique perspective on the situation. I think that, given the opportunity, the Ladies of our section will rise to the challenge and compete in both events with equal zeal. To lock them out cheats everyone of a larger turn-out for all events, I think. By the way, everyone on this thread is male....anyone see a problem with this? Can we stop the politics, please?
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 8, 2005 8:49:27 GMT -6
CJ, I would hope that you have read all of the posts from a year ago concerning the mixing/segregation of events. All of these horses have been beaten until they are bloody. I agree with DS. We should let this format stand for atleast as long as the previous format. If everyone would give this format a try and stop whining and boycoting because they didn't get their way, atleast we would have some valid statistical data to deal with in a few years. What it looks like now is they are afraid that they are going to be wrong, so this format is being sabotaged.
Let's get back to the topic of this thread. Is anyone else going to run for section officer? If you have some other ideas that you think would be great for ALL fencers and make a meaningful contribution to the section, then why not express those ideas or support those who are willing to stand for you and take the abuse as non-paid volunteer elected officers.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on May 8, 2005 21:16:14 GMT -6
OK so..., I think. By the way, everyone on this thread is male....anyone see a problem with this? Can we stop the politics, please? Sorry, I didn't mean to redirect the thread. This is just what I think about the mens-womens-mixed-event crap. Has anyone asked the Ladies what they think? I myself would love to volunteer to help serve, but (look out; this is going to sound lame) I just do not have the time. Perhaps when my girls get a little older I'll have more free time...I'de also like to become a rated ref, if I ever get a chance. My hat is off to you folks who are able to make this kind of commitment, to be an official in any respect.
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 8, 2005 21:29:32 GMT -6
Giorgio: How many posts critical of me have you posted which remain for all to read? How many times have you launched into my friends, like Matt? ........... As to the"fixing the race" analogy, that phrase implies I had an effect on the outcome......... ..........Fix that race? Hey, I'm not THAT good...... Dear Schlager7: First I want to commend you and thank you for having gone through the troubles of setting up this discussion board which allows us to vent and share information for the benefit of all. It is remarkable to notice how members of other neighboring divisions participate in this forum discussions since they apparently don't have one of their own. I notice that you and I frequently have different opinions about many topics and issues. I always thought that you welcome this diversity of opinion and felt that the forum was open to civil and spirited discussions. It surprises me that you take it personally when I disagree with you. Please read again what I posted about your "censorship" and try to understand what should be clear to anyone reading the title, i.e., a difference of opinion -- nothing more and nothing less. Obviously you are free to feel and act as you wish and we will continue this discourse whenever the topic is raised. Being the pain-in-the-neck that I am, for sake of good order, I once more put on my teacher's hat to correct your use of words and invite you to revise your assumptions, all in the spirit of a civil discussion from which we both may benefit. I don't, nor ever did "launch[ed] into my friends, like Matt" as you erroneously state. For start, let's go to the dictionary: launch (lônch, länch) v.tr.To throw or propel with force; hurl: launch a spear.To set or thrust (a self-propelled craft or projectile) in motion: launch a rocket; launch a torpedo. Nautical. To put (a boat) into the water in readiness for use. To set going; initiate: launch a career; launch a business venture.To introduce to the public or to a market: launched the new perfume with prime-time commercials on the major networks.To give (someone) a start, as in a career or vocation. v.intr.To begin a new venture or phase; embark: launch forth on a dangerous mission; launched out on her own after college. To enter enthusiastically into something; plunge: launched into a description of the movie. You use the intransitive form of the verb launch and therefore it should be clear that I did not do such thing to your friends, like Matt. But probably you meant to use a more fencing appropriate verb like lungelunge (lunj) v.intr.To make a sudden thrust or pass. To move with a sudden thrust. v.tr.To cause (someone) to lunge. Please note the different spelling AND pronunciation of the two verbs, lest we get into another confusion like the one you properly pointed out between contract and contact earlier on in this thread. In the figurative sense, I don't lunge into you friends, like Matt, I just disagree with his modus cogitandi et operandi, and I'm not the only one to feel this way and to speak up about it. But I am one of the very few who still thinks that Matt is an honest person who just has a peculiar way to think and handle every day problems, and who holds different opinions. Matt knows it, and I am surprised that you don't.As to the "fixing the race" statement you attribute to me, I actually wrote the following: ....... But what you did, with your, in my opinion, uncalled for intervention, you just made an attempt to 'fix' a race. Since I don't believe that you wanted to do so, I hope that next time you will refrain from this type of censorship and interference. .......
I never accused you of anything, quite to the contrary I supported what I believe were and are your honest intentions. I just invited you to think about the possible consequences of your censorship. Naturally, you and everyone else are free to disagree with my opinion. All this lengthy and maybe pedantic explanation is to invite you once more, not to have such a thin skin if or when I criticize you or disagree with you. It is all done for the good of the sport and the fencers, which I am sure we both share. We, you and I, are on the same side of the table, just with different opinions from time to time about certain issues. This is how we make a horse race...
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 8, 2005 23:14:10 GMT -6
Sorry, I didn't mean to redirect the thread. This is just what I think about the mens-womens-mixed-event crap. Has anyone asked the Ladies what they think? I myself would love to volunteer to help serve, but (look out; this is going to sound lame) I just do not have the time. Perhaps when my girls get a little older I'll have more free time...I'de also like to become a rated ref, if I ever get a chance. My hat is off to you folks who are able to make this kind of commitment, to be an official in any respect. Short answer, yes, it was discussed, and shot down almost as quickly as it was proposed. By the female competitors who were at the meeting, I should note. The longer answer would take a long time to go into, and to be honest, I'd have to look back through my notes to remember what it would all consist of, but touch on many issues of tournament organization. And CJ, there are many roles we can all play, and your support is appreciated. Our sport needs enthusiastic supporters like yourself as well. However, there are a host of small coordination issues for the SSCC alone begging out for someone to take the reins. Just as an example, it would be great if there was a specific person in charge of equipment coordination (bascially, asking each SSCC LOC what equipment they have, what equipment they'll need and then contacting the Divisions to help get it there). I say this not neccessarily as a plea for help (although, it is partly that), but also to let you know, that when you're ready to start small, don't worry, your conribution can be small, but still valuable.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 9, 2005 22:02:13 GMT -6
Apparently, the following people are also running for office.
Scott Stevens, for chair Rhonda Triesch, for vice-chair Rob Janca, for treasurer Marty Wysocki, for secretary. Richard Exnicios, for Board of Directors representative
I have no information if this is a slate or a group of independant candidates.
There may be vision statements from one or all of these people coming out soon.
Additionally, it would be best to describe the following candidates at this time as a mutually supporting group of candiates, rather than an official "slate." We may decide to run as an official slate together though.
David Sierra - chair Rachel El-Saleh - vice-chair Terry Harkey - secretary Anjea Ray - treasurer
All of us have put together our Vision Statements, but are waiting for the other group to put theirs together so they can all be released together. Seperate from this group, but supported by us, Jerry Benson is considering a run for USFA Board of Directors Rep again. He's still considering all the options, and will make a final decision at Sectionals. I for one strongly hope that he will run, as he's an experienced voice for our Section at the National level, well respected and highly regarded both across our Section and across the USFA.
|
|
|
Post by Scooter on May 11, 2005 0:09:45 GMT -6
Howdy Fencers, My name is Scott Stevens, I'm running for Chairman of the Southwest Section and I am asking for your support to help build a stronger Section. For those of you whom I haven't met yet, let me introduce myself by saying that I have been a fencer since 1984 when I started in highschool. I have lived and fenced in Texas since 1989 and I am currently a member of the Austin Fencers Club. I have served as an officer for the South Texas division and was member of the LOC that brought the 2000 Div-1A National Championships to Austin Texas. Our section has one of the best regional circuit events in the country, and since it's inception has served to increase the level of fencing throughout our section and into the neighboring areas as well. However, over the last several years, I believe that the SSCC has lost sight of the purpose of the Circuit Cup, "To promote increased participation among all levels of fencers in tournaments outside their home Divisions, to provide elite athletes with serious fencing at Regional competitions, to increase the size and strength of tournaments throughout the Section, to better prepare fencers for competition on the National level, and to promote fencing in general across the Section." However, due to excessive, mandated, late entry penalties, tournaments are seeing as many as 50% of the fencers who registered early to avoid the late fees NOT show up, which does nothing to increate the size and strength of the tournament, but only serves to increase uncertaintity when trying to decide which tournaments to attend. "It is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of fencers surveyed that SSCC events should continue to include a Mixed event and a separate Women’s event." - David Sierra, SSCC Commissioner; SSCC Commissioner’s Report to the Southwest Section General Membership May 17, 2003 The SSCC has grown tremendously since the first Circuit Cup event in 1995, and the Sections involvement in the tournaments that make up the Circut has increased as well, in some ways that go counter to the intended relationship between the Section and it's member divisions. Additionally, the SSCC has enacted policies opposed by a majority of fencers about how the circuit cup events should be managed, and what types of events may and may not be held. As the Chairman of the Section, along with my Vice-Chair Rhonda Treitch, Secretary Marty Wysocki, Treasurer Rob Janca, and our USFA representative Richard Exnicios, I will work closely and dilligently with the incoming section executive committee, and the clubs which are the backbone of the success of the Circuit Cup, to address this imballance and guarantee that the elected officers of the Southwest Section are acting on the behalf of, and in the best interests of you, the fencer. This is YOUR Section, and your opinion matters - vote! If you can't attend the annual Section business meeting on May 14th in person, you can still cast your vote by printing out and sending your proxy with a representative to the sectional meeting. Blank proxy forms can be found on the Section website: www.southwestfencing.org/SWSforms/SWSproxy2005.pdfOn behalf of Rhonda, Rob and Marty, I am asking for your support and your vote in the upcoming election. Thank you very much, Scott Stevens gScooter@gmail.com
|
|
|
Post by Epeedude on May 11, 2005 0:22:25 GMT -6
So Scott, who would your slate of candidates see as taking the position of SSCC Commissioner, possibly the least appreciated and most thankless task one can imagine?
|
|