|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 14, 2004 0:23:59 GMT -6
...and San Marcos thinks they have a cat fight.
Times are pretty good in our division. Most of our local fencing clubs are at least surviving and several are thriving. With a dozen plus groups, we can expect a fair number of tournaments.
Previously, there were all manner of attempts to co-ordinate or coerce (depending on which side of the fence you were on) the schedule of tournaments so that no two occurred on the same date. This was a worthy ideal. Had the number of clubs been smaller or their individual schedules less busy, it might even have worked.
Alas, the mixed blessing of robust clubs is that, even with 52 weekends (once we allow for the summer down time and avoid the 6 SSCC conflicts and the like) the calendar gets tight. There are at least five organizations that plan at least 4 tournaments each.
52 minus 20 minus 6 (SSCC) minus about 12 (summer)... You get the idea.
Basically we made peace with the idea that there will be weekends in our division with multiple events. To prove my point, we have just such a one coming up October 16-17. We have:
SWIFA at A&M on Saturday Bayou City's Beginners' Tournament on Saturday Salle Mauro's Youth tournie Saturday & Sunday Alliance's Rising Stars on Sunday.
Now A&M gets the SWIFA event they are assigned and it can't be helped.
As to the other three clubs/conflicts... I guess it could just be bad luck and timing. We knew the conflicts would occur.
Then, too, all three are youth and/or beginners' tournaments. I'm all for letting the marketplace shake things down, but I wonder if each tournament sponsor isn't, perhaps, doing themselves a disservice.
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Oct 15, 2004 11:55:21 GMT -6
I did notice that there seemed to be youth tournies sorta schedualed together on the same weekend. I was asked to officate at one but it's SWIFA for me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 19, 2004 11:45:43 GMT -6
I had a couple ask (including SWIFA), but had to decline since: 1.) I was on vacation; and, 2.) I had already promised to help a friend with a fencing demo at George R. Brown that Saturday.
I, myself, belong to two clubs and this involves neither, but...
I couldn't help but note that it did not look like scheduling three youth events on top of each other was going to do any of the sponsors any good. It just reduces the turnout for each one of them.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 3, 2005 20:05:29 GMT -6
Well we have another pair of tournaments on the same weekend upcoming (January 8-9) will Salle Mauro and Alliance Fencing Academy going head-to-head. This time, at least, it is only two tournaments/clubs.
Also, I noticed that the main epee and foil events are held on opposite days of the weekend. Presumably, if you're a 1-weapon fencer, you could fence foil at both or epee at both.
Unfortunately, the sabre fencers get ripped because almost all the sabre events are on Sunday at both.
Still, it is an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 5, 2005 3:49:30 GMT -6
Well we have another pair of tournaments on the same weekend upcoming (January 8-9) will Salle Mauro and Alliance Fencing Academy going head-to-head. This time, at least, it is only two tournaments/clubs. Also, I noticed that the main epee and foil events are held on opposite days of the weekend. Presumably, if you're a 1-weapon fencer, you could fence foil at both or epee at both. Unfortunately, the sabre fencers get ripped because almost all the sabre events are on Sunday at both. Still, it is an improvement. Let me reply to your posting with this little story. A Missionary went to deepest Africa to carry the Word to the heathens. He'd carefully studied the local languages and dialects so was prepared to address the people in their native tongue. Upon arriving at a village deep in the rain forest after a long and hazardous journey, he was surprised to find the Chief spoke English but, as expected, the average tribesman did not. The Chief was skeptical that his people would listen and receive the Missionary's message, but he called his people together and asked them to listen. The Missionary spoke at length, with shouts of "Huzzanga" coming periodically from the crowd. The Missionary ended his talk and was very pleased with reception he'd received. Indeed, the Chief invited him to join him for supper. Winding their way through the village where people and livestock intermingled, the Chief admonished the Missionary to be careful where he walked and to not step in the huzzanga. So, to your conclusion "Still, it is an improvement" my reply is HUZZANGA! Your posting puzzles me and others who are not afraid to look at the facts and draw conclusions. It is even more perplexing since you have the hobby of history and facts checking and objectivity are the main traits of any historian either real or wanna be. You choose to ignore the well documented fact that this is not 2 or 3 clubs going head-to-head in a fight for market share, but two clubs, Salle Mauro and BCFA, scheduling their tournaments on top of previously announced and posted dates of tournaments by Alliance and/or Katy Blades. It is true that imitation is the best form of flattery, and I suppose Andrey and Augie must be flattered by the two other clubs finding that their tournament dates are the absolutely best. What I don't understand is why you don't report this fact? Instead you like to assume a Salomon-like pose and split the blame of the overlap between Andrey and in this case Mauro 50/50. In doing so you do a disservice to everyone, including the offending party (Mauro, in this case). This is particularly egregious in your position of chairman of the Bout Committee. This overlap is not good for Salle Mauro, nor for Alliance and the Houston Cup initiative, nor for the fencing community in this Division. According to askfred, this is how the two tournaments compare in preregistration so far: Alliance Mix epee open: 49 preregistered a possible A2 competition (13 A's, 6 B's, 12 C's...) Salle Mauro Mix epee open: 23 preregistered a possible B1 competition (2 B's, 5 C's...) Alliance mix foil open: 26 preregistered a possible B2 competition (3 B's, 5 C's...) Salle Mauro mix foil open: 33 preregistered a possible B2 competition (4 B's, 4 C's...) In the other epee events, Alliance has better or equal rating than Salle Mauro, while the foil events are equally rated between the two clubs, with Salle Mauro having an edge in the number of preregistered. The saber events are so sparsely attended that scheduling them on top of each other makes the situation even more ridiculous. So who wins in this battle royal? NOBODY! Who loses? EVERYBODY! My invitation to the clubs organizing tournaments is to please use a bit of courtesy and common sense and don't start the game of Me TOO preferred by two years olds. Instead try to cooperate and work together for everyone's benefit and join the Houston Cup so that all can share. And to you, the historian of the division, don't try to please everyone by ignoring when the playing field is slanted, and check the facts, just the facts ... man!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 5, 2005 10:04:17 GMT -6
I dunno...
Multiple clubs competing for the same small pools of fencers on the same weekends has a certain free-market/competitive/Darwinian quality.
Eventually, those who draw enough fencers to make the event work will succeed. Those who don't... won't.
It's every club leader's God-given right to shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 5, 2005 16:36:29 GMT -6
I dunno... Multiple clubs competing for the same small pools of fencers on the same weekends has a certain free-market/competitive/Darwinian quality. Eventually, those who draw enough fencers to make the event work will succeed. Those who don't... won't. It's every club leader's God-given right to shoot themselves in the foot. Surprisingly, I agree with you. My long tirade was just directed at leveling the playing field of public opinion where the non cooperative parties (SM and BCFA) are put in the same bunch with the cooperative ones (ALL and KB) without explaining the obvious difference. I am also disappointed by the lack of public support on the part of the "preachers" for the honest attempts by Augie (officially) and others (unofficially) to invite everyone at the round table.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 5, 2005 17:23:13 GMT -6
Instead you like to assume a Salomon-like pose and split the blame of the overlap between Andrey and in this case Mauro 50/50. In doing so you do a disservice to everyone, including the offending party (Mauro, in this case). Actually, I do not believe I have ever claimed to be either Salomon-like or, more commonly, Solomon-like. Brevity, as they say, being the soul of wit, let me but mention that I believe I have blamed no one. That, of course, is the essence of my sin. Also, by Flamberge's logic, if my "little" club held a tournament opposite Alliance (which would most likely command a more impressive roster of competitors), regardless of who posted their event first, my club should withdraw from the disputed weekend lest "fencing" lose because someone might unfortunately compete in our little, for instance, C mixed foil event instead of Alliance's A event.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge Fan on Jan 7, 2005 3:37:40 GMT -6
Flamberg is so wise. He reaches out to our hearts and our minds from accross the internet - always advocating unity and never seeking to cast blame or be divisive.
Some might say he's a condescending drip with an agenda, but not me! Preach on Flamberge!
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 10, 2005 1:09:32 GMT -6
How to minimize tournament collision through effective scheduling In the following thread in Fencing.net, covering the topic of Super Youth Circuit Decisions or lack thereof on the part of the USFA, a question is asked by fluidfencer and answered by edew regarding scheduling of events for a fencing season in a Division or geographical area. Once more I find the opinions and experience of edew to be quite valid, informed, and enlightening. We could learn from the experience of others and make the necessary changes to the 'free for all' system we have now which just fosters further divisions and petty rivalries instead of cooperation, to the detriment of all fencers. www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14794&page=3&pp=30Posting #85 Quote: Originally Posted by fluidfencer [...] Eric - Is your scheduling (Bay Cup and otherwise) generally done top-down where you set the calendar, or bottom-up where the clubs let you know when their tournaments will be held? Answer by edew: For the Bay Cup, we use a top-down method. By mid-April, I start the schedule by checking on what USFA plans to run, what the PCS plans to run, and when are good dates to put qualifiers. Then I excise holiday weekends, and what's left will be possible Bay Cup event dates. Certain anchor events, the Fall Fest, the Spring Fest, the Golden State 3-Weapon Women's, and several others are scheduled to their pretty-much expected weekend dates. Then, I work on spreading out the schedule so that conflicts and resource usage are minimized. I then submit the schedule (without locations) to various clubs to inspect for any flaws. Then, I go over the location and correct flaws. In mid-August, hopefully, a member from each Bay Cup club comes by and we divvy up the event dates to specific clubs. I also distribute a list showing the expected size of each event. I'm not always correct in my prognostications. This season, our Category-2 Men's Foil is double what I predicted, based on prior seasons' numbers. That really screwed up the event for several clubs who picked that event up. As for the RYC, I defer to the host club to tell me when they want to do it. They have to make arrangements to find a facility and they can't always be handcuffed to a specific weekend in order to get a reasonable date. Post #91 by edew ... Some things can't be led by a committee. It just needs a person to do the job and that's it. Hopefully, we will not engage in futile attempts to reinvent the wheel just because it was not invented here.
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Jan 10, 2005 8:50:02 GMT -6
Nice idea, but this will never work. There is too much stupidity in the upper ranks here in Houston. Also, not every club is united under the Houston Cup. Edew's scheduling method should work for making sure that the two clubs that participate in the Houston Cup do not have schedule conflicts, but they already work together.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Jan 10, 2005 10:09:19 GMT -6
So basically what's being advocated here is the section determining when the circuit events will be and the division determining when the rest of the tournaments will be. Bad idea. There is no good reason both those tournaments couldn't be held the same weekend.
The Salle Mauro tournament was strong with great fencing in all 3 weapons and I'm sure the Alliance tournament was similarly well-run and fenced. Both clubs have competent leadership, and I would expect nothing less.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 10, 2005 15:32:51 GMT -6
Frankly I am amazed by the two postings above (Dan & cowpaste) as a reaction to what I posted about the California experience. On purpose I quoted an exchange between people who are not involved in our petty fights, and who have done and strive to do something to improve fencing instead of just the pockets of one or two owners. Dan, please don't attribute to me or others suggestions that I/we never made, like the Section and the Division DICTATING to the clubs what to do. I just wanted to show how others are minimizing the scheduling problems in an intelligent way, and how in the process the entire fencing community benefited from it. By comparison, this past weekend we had here the perfect example of free market not producing the best results FOR THE FENCERS. Here is how I, and others who want to keep an open mind see it. Alliance had at the prereg stage 2 A2 type of competitions (mixed epee and cadet epee). In mixed epee, few more fencers coming would have made the event an A4. In reality with the fencers present, about 20 more (none of them A's) would have made the open epee an A4 event. As you know, but others still don't, an A4 event grants "A" ratings to the top 8, B's to 9-16, C's to 17-24, D's to 25-32, and E's to 33-48. To have this type of potential you have to travel across the country at Div I type events during NAC's. Instead, WE in the GC division have NOW the potential to put up an A4 event saving on air fare, hotel and travel expenses. This is what they did in California in the Silicon Valley area where there is a certain abundance of functioning grey material and they have reaped the benefits of this approach. What's wrong in trying to do the same? The Alliance tournament with 200 plus fencers was a quantum leap in terms of the quality of fencers attending from around Texas and even outside Texas. The previous Houston Cup #1 at Katy Blades with 100 plus fencers was also a very successful event attracting people from around TX just because of the underlying principle of cooperation. And in both tournaments few Salle Mauro fencers came and enjoyed the experience as their number increased from #1 to #2... Had Salle Mauro cooperated and joined forces, as they were repeatedly invited to do by Andrey, August, and Alex, in bringing along their resources (strips, judges, coaches, etc.) and fencers, the tournament would have been bigger and run smoother to the satisfaction of all, including the most skeptical. As to cowpaste comments, you are a pessimist and I choose to be an optimist. Hopefully we will both end up as realists and stupidity will become irrelevant in the long run, as Einstein postulated. So, can we have for once a win-win situation or not?
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Jan 10, 2005 16:01:44 GMT -6
Dan, the tournaments by each club was indeed strong, but they could have been stronger. I really don't see how the fencers benefited from a double tournament like this. You have to keep in mind that the main Foil/Epee evens were scheduled on different days. What if they were scheduled on the same days? It would have been much worse.
As for being an pessimist, I guess you are right, Flamberge. I am one. Overall I feel it is better to be optimistic except for one situation: when stupidity/arrogance is involved. This is what I learned in college: stupid/arrogant people remain stupid/arrogant people. This is especially true in ADULTS. If a child is acting overly prideful and snotty, parents can often times successfully teach the child to change. However, we are dealing with adults. Adults are stubborn...and sometimes, they are stupid too. Well guess what? Stubborn, stupid people sometimes obtain leadership positions, and this is a bad thing. So, unless human nature changes or we all become cooperation loving hippies, I shall remain a pessimist.
|
|
|
Post by jdnlv on Jan 10, 2005 16:02:18 GMT -6
I have to agree with several of the post that a unified effort by all the clubs in the division would lead to the chance for greater advancement for all the fencers. this would i believe also have a beneficial financial effect for all the clubs as the events would create great word of mouth amongst both the fencing contingent and potential fencers. As for the competition this weekend I attended both and agree with Flamberge that a single event would have been better directed but as for additional fencers I saw most of the Salle Mauro people (of which I am a member) in attendance at the Alliance event. i hope that next year every club in the division will participate in the Houston Cup series. I believe it wil be beneficial to both the fencers and the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 10, 2005 19:07:53 GMT -6
I have to agree with several of the post that a unified effort by all the clubs in the division would lead to the chance for greater advancement for all the fencers...... As for the competition this weekend I attended both and agree with Flamberge that a single event would have been better directed but as for additional fencers I saw most of the Salle Mauro people (of which I am a member) in attendance at the Alliance event. i hope that next year every club in the division will participate in the Houston Cup series. I believe it wil be beneficial to both the fencers and the clubs. Thank you jdnlv and I hope we can see the beginning of something good in all this. A point that has not been made is that as the size of the fencing population increases in the Houston area, and the level of the local fencers (as measured by the letter ratings) improves, Houston tournaments will attract more fencers locally and from the surrounding divisions. This is good, but it will bring new problems, namely how to run monthly tournaments with 300-400+ participants. No single club in Houston can handle this level of "success." We already experienced the limits of growth in the second day at Alliance. We need more strips, we need more judges, we need more flexible space, we need a tournament infrastructure (software, equipment, volunteers, etc.) that only a cooperation between most of the clubs, NOT ONLY TWO, can deliver. Larger numbers will attract better fencers from areas in the central part of the country which have not yet organized and put together something like the Bay Cup in California, and now the Houston Cup here. It is true that some Salle Mauro fencers attended the first day, and it is also true that their number has doubled between the Houston cup #1 and #2, but many more could have come and those that came one day did not come the other day since they felt they had to go to the Salle Mauro event (understandably from a loyalty point of view). But fencers are just one component of the equation. Coaches and judges are the other one, and they did not come. This also applies to BCFA, though their coaches came on Sunday -- their free day. In conclusion, let's drop this ridiculous approach of 'free' market which in this case and under these circumstances only distorts the problem, and let's work together to offer the fencing community, youth and veterans, a real opportunity for growth. There is always a time and a place, nationally and internationally, where our fencers can fence all the others and each other. There we will see which program produces the champions. But here at home, we still have plenty to grow in experience and maturity. So, cowpaste, maybe you too will see a glimmer of optimism. Failing that, remember Einstein words about stupid people ... in the long run THEY become inconsequential ... we hope!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Jan 11, 2005 9:40:12 GMT -6
So I'm confused. How does more people at a tournament improve it for all the fencers? It doesn't change the number of people most fence. Sure it can change the rating the winner and others a little farther down the chain get, but is that really an inherently good thing? If bigger is somehow better, why didn't the fencers go to both tournaments?
If the events are held on different days, and people can fence in two tournaments, now the fencers can get more fencing in a weekend. Hand-wringing and what-ifs aside, the events were held on separate days except the saber.
Tournaments are big for clubs. To expect one club not to hold any because the weekends are all taken is assinine.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by El Caribe on Jan 11, 2005 15:35:25 GMT -6
I understand what you are saying Dan, but I think the point several are making or thinking is that if all the clubs came to one tournament there would be several advantages. First it would assure that all the best fencers would be at one location increasing your chances of fencing them. Second, with a larger number of fencers pools are larger potentially. Lastly, you would get to fence different people with different styles. If people just go to one club's tournaments all the time and avoid going to others you never get to fence different people with different styles. that hurts when you go to national events. Just some thoughts. Welcome back!
El Caribe
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Jan 11, 2005 19:59:27 GMT -6
There is this thing called Fatigue. It's probably why many people did not fence at both tournaments. Is SM your old club or something?
Here are the reasons *I* didn't fence at both tournaments: 1. I was afraid I would be tired for one if I fenced at another 2. I was asked to ref
Tournament collision = fatigue and less refs
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 11, 2005 22:06:17 GMT -6
So I'm confused. How does more people at a tournament improve it for all the fencers? It doesn't change the number of people most fence. Sure it can change the rating the winner and others a little farther down the chain get, but is that really an inherently good thing? If bigger is somehow better, why didn't the fencers go to both tournaments? If the events are held on different days, and people can fence in two tournaments, now the fencers can get more fencing in a weekend. Hand-wringing and what-ifs aside, the events were held on separate days except the saber. Tournaments are big for clubs. To expect one club not to hold any because the weekends are all taken is assinine. Dan Oh boy! Maybe cowpaste's pessimism is closer to reality than my optimism ... Dan, you start by admitting that you are confused and then proceed making pronouncements that are obviously ... shall we say confused? A tournament with events where you have only 6 or 10 fencers mostly from the same club could be improved if it had more fencers from different clubs, don't you think? It's called competition between fencers on the strip, not competition between events scheduled on top of each other in a contest between clubs. It's fencers that compete, not clubs! The number of fencers aside, there are other components just as needed for the successful running of any tournament, like the number of available and qualified judges, strips, etc. As I said before, not one club in Houston can handle efficiently a tournament with more than 200 fencers, lest one accepts to go through lengthy waiting periods, making what could be a pleasant experience an exhausting one for fencers AND spectators alike, hence handicapping growth of the sport. You question whether improving the ratings for participating fencers at larger tournament is a good thing? It isn't? So why go to ANY tournament then? Are you advocating just to practice during the week with your mates, at your club, in a closet? Why, you ask, didn't fencers go to both tournaments over the weekend? (A) ubiquity is not a quality shared by fencers and other normal humans, (B) cost and inconvenience influence the decision making process of parents and fencers alike. Two events at one tournament cost $30. Two events, one at each club, cost $40. Multiply this by the number of fencers in a family, and it adds up. You are incorrect in stating that only saber (the least "popular" weapon) was on the same day this past weekend. So was mix cadet epee. And those who fence more than one weapon were also adversely affected. The Salle Mauro epeeists (eligible to fence in mix cadet) who fenced in the open mix epee the first day, very much regretted this overlap since the Alliance mix cadet event was of a higher rating than the Salle Mauro (because of those darned ratings, you see) and the practice would have been beneficial to all. But where we disagree most, is in the scope of this discussion. I try, with others, to support and promote activities which are beneficial to all FENCERS and their families. Your concern is for the clubs (or is it only one club?). You say that "Tournaments are big for clubs. To expect one club not to hold any because the weekends are all taken is assinine." You label, wrongly I might add, our expectations "assinine." Unless you are into creating new insults in the English language, I hope that you mean ASININE, not ASS-inine. The former comes from Latin asinus, English ass. The latter does not exist unless you want to offend those of us who disagree with your point of view by referring to anatomical parts not pertinent to this discussion. I realize that politics is the art of persuasion and obviously I fail miserably at it. But I, and others, wish that you'd keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Jan 12, 2005 20:58:02 GMT -6
You guys are so lucky! If I lived up there, I'd be game to fence two tournaments in one weekend. Maybe some day our numbers in Corpus will grow to the point we have to worry about things like this. Until then, I'm tormented knowing that you are. ;D Put it all into perspective and be glad that you are able to compete somewhere nearby. That truly is a blessing--- period. And while you are at it, thank the sponsors of those tournaments, too, because it is a _lot_ of work to run one, and from my experience with tournaments in your area, they probably did a wonderful job! Know that conflicts are the nature of the scheduling beast. This is true any time you plan anything! I was a UIL Coordinator for many years and hosted two District Tournaments at the junior high level where hundreds of kids came to our school to compete in numerous events. It was a nightmare trying to pick a date that did not conflict with other activities and schedule events where students could be in as many events as possible. I also had a lot of fun with budgets and facilities, as well as materials, judges, timers, pronouncers etc... I did this for the sheer joy of it because the mere $200 a year I got for my expertise was at best an insult. I would not be surprised if the people running these tournaments made less than that after they paid off all their expenses, so be grateful they bothered to host anything at all and count your blessings.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 21, 2005 12:45:14 GMT -6
I guess I was one of those complaining about having to choose to fence one day or both. Saberbobcat put me in place. Was I really complaining because I had [glow=red,2,300]too many[/glow] choices? I guess it might be an issue to local elites, but for us peasants, I should be happy I had the choice of foil one day or two...
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Jan 22, 2005 14:56:57 GMT -6
Hey, Martin... I understand all too well about trying to finance an addiction to the sport. Maybe some day I'll move to Houston or San Marcos where at least it will be a little more convenient for me to do what I love most in the world, or I'll win the lottery and my life will only revolve around competing in all the NACs and establishing the finest fencing salle in the world... Till then, I'll fence when I can and LOVE every minute of it! A day of fencing is a good day indeed, even if there are issues that should be ironed out!
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Jan 24, 2005 15:55:49 GMT -6
The postings by Saberbobcat and Martin prove that what's wrong for many, may be right for few. In other words nobody is 100% right or wrong. Clearly two overlapping tournaments over the same weekend can be a good thing for people driving in from out of town and catching two birds with one stone, so to speak. If the honest purpose of the organizers was to offer variety, that would be acceptable also. But we all know that behind all this is an unhealthy attitude of two clubs who purposely refuse to cooperate with the rest, who try to undermine the efforts of others towards any change/improvement for the fencers, and who picked those dates AFTER they were already announced with the clear intent to sabotage. Ignoring this is not being kind or generous, it's being blind or worse.
|
|