PDA

View Full Version : Leipzig



tigger
-5th July 2005, 13:41
So with the qualification effectively over (no more major A grades left) who will be going?

I'm pretty sure Louise BW, Jojo and Chrystall have qualified, along with Richard Kruse... anyone know if anyone else has achieved the criteria of 1 x L16 + 1 x L32? Neil Hutchison has 3 x L32s in MS (L32 at Europeans and 2 x upgraded L64s) - I think he deserves to go, but we'll have to see....

I think Camy has 3 or 4 L32s (either upgraded from 64s or downgraded from weak L16s)...but no L16s that haven't been downgraded

ChubbyHubby
-5th July 2005, 14:01
Originally posted by tigger

I think Camy has 3 or 4 L32s (either upgraded from 64s or downgraded from weak L16s)...but no L16s that haven't been downgraded

Don't think she has any L32. Most of her results that count are either L64s or L16 and L32 that has been downgraded to L64s (including the Euros I think).

tigger
-6th July 2005, 09:18
I THINK (but not sure) that she has 2 x L64s upgraded to L32 and a L16 downgraded to something else (not certain tho)

ChubbyHubby
-6th July 2005, 09:48
Originally posted by tigger
I THINK (but not sure) that she has 2 x L64s upgraded to L32 and a L16 downgraded to something else (not certain tho)

[geek hat ON]
You're right, she does have one L64 upgraded to L32 (Budapest - NIFF>1000), and 2 x L16 downgraded to a L64 (Cairo and Bucarest - incomplete L32 tableaux) with no points from St Petersburg, Gdansk, Salzburg, Leipzig, Las Vegas (didn't make cut, didn't make L64 or cut direct to L64) giving a total of 1xL32 and 2xL64 for WC qualification purposes.
[geek hat OFF]

UglyBug
-8th July 2005, 15:16
When do they make the decision?

tigger
-11th July 2005, 22:15
Next year the BFA are talking about increasing the qualifying standard again (I think it's to a L8).

Lucky most other countries don't do this - if they did, guess how many Male sabreurs this year have met the qualifying standard? 36 from the whole world....and as each country can only send maximum 4 fencers, 3 french + 1 russian would have to be excluded from this list. So there would be 32 sabreurs at the Worlds!

And how many countries could send enough sabreurs to do the team event? six...and that DOESN'T include Italy (!), USA, Spain, Romania, Poland, Ukraine

Gangsta G
-11th July 2005, 23:36
A reply from Keith is really needed here. What Tigger says makes it fairly evident that the GB qualification bar is far too high. This point has been made so many times it feels like a stuck record!

Glue Boy
-12th July 2005, 09:48
if they do raise it to an 8 i really don't see us really ever sending any body to the worlds! Its looking like we are barely sending anyone this year, so yeah, make it tougher, that makes sense.

Tigger u will probs know this, if we were to change it to a L8, would we have the toughest qualification standards in the World?

Gangsta G
-12th July 2005, 10:42
Originally posted by Glue Boy
if we were to change it to a L8, would we have the toughest qualification standards in the World? Wouldn't be surprised - most countries don't have a qualification criteria do they?

Insipiens
-12th July 2005, 10:43
The criteria seem far too demanding to me and even though they are never going to be personally relevant I would have thought they are discouraging.

Not sending full teams has an impact on future success as well: a good worlds with an excellent performance on the day (like Richard Kruse at the Olympics) will improve the fencer's FIE ranking and therefore seeding in future events. More importantly is the impact of team success on qualification for the Olympics.

ChubbyHubby
-12th July 2005, 11:48
Originally posted by Insipiens
The criteria seem far too demanding to me and even though they are never going to be personally relevant I would have thought they are discouraging.

Not sending full teams has an impact on future success as well: a good worlds with an excellent performance on the day (like Richard Kruse at the Olympics) will improve the fencer's FIE ranking and therefore seeding in future events. More importantly is the impact of team success on qualification for the Olympics.

It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of UKSport...

The BFA's performance is measured by percentages of results vs elite atheletes sent to target competitions. They want to be able to demonstrate all this funding is generating improved performances, to do this they need to massage the stats.

Supposedly a lot of countries do these smoke and mirror tricks in sport politics. I

read somewhere (can't remember where) that China was "holding back" in the second week of Athens so they do NOT top the medals table. They want to save it for Beijing 2008, because if they topped the table this time but not 2008, performance hasn't improved.

Why they don't just discount non-elite (non funded) fencers from the UKSports stats is a mystery.

ChubbyHubby
-14th July 2005, 12:03
The Team is up...

World Championships 2005 - Team

Athletes

MENS EPEE Individual and (provisionally) Team events
GREG ALLEN, TOM CADMAN and (provisionally) TRISTAN LANE

WOMENS EPEE -

MENS FOIL Individual and Team events
JAMES BEEVERS, RICHARD KRUSE, DAVID MANSOUR, DAVID RISELEY (Reserve: LAURENCE HALSTED)

WOMENS FOIL Individual event only
CAMILLE DATOO

MENS SABRE Individual event only
NEIL HUTCHISON, ALEX O'CONNELL

WOMENS SABRE Individual and Team events
LOUISE BOND-WILLIAMS, JOANNA HUTCHISON, JESSICA LACHETA, CHRYSTALL NICOLL (Reserve: BETH DAVIDSON)

So out of these who qualified? and who got the nod?

tigger
-15th July 2005, 09:17
As far as I can work out discretionary selections are:

MS Alex O' Connell and Neil Hutchison (Alex has no senior results, Neil 3 x L32s (2 upgraded 64s plus European L32)

WS Jess Lacheta - Jess has 1 x L32 (an upgraded L64) and a L128 (downgraded from L64)

WF Camille Datoo - L32s but no L16

ME - Tristan Lane - 1 L32 upgraded from L64

MF - Dunno for sure - couldn't be bothered to check all results!

On this basis I would suggest that Chris Buxton (who has a L32 upgraded from L64 - same as Tris and Jess, better than Alex) deserves to go, and would make up a full team in MS.

Boo Boo
-15th July 2005, 09:27
Originally posted by tigger
MF - Dunno for sure - couldn't be bothered to check all results!

I believe that only Richard K qualified.

RIP WF and WE... :upset:

Boo
(probably doesn't need to repeat her thoughts on the whole subjective, untransparent, unaccountable, ridiculous system again...)

ChubbyHubby
-15th July 2005, 10:00
Originally posted by tigger
As far as I can work out discretionary selections are:

MS Alex O' Connell and Neil Hutchison (Alex has no senior results, Neil 3 x L32s (2 upgraded 64s plus European L32)

WS Jess Lacheta - Jess has 1 x L32 (an upgraded L64) and a L128 (downgraded from L64)

WF Camille Datoo - L32s but no L16

ME - Tristan Lane - 1 L32 upgraded from L64

MF - Dunno for sure - couldn't be bothered to check all results!

On this basis I would suggest that Chris Buxton (who has a L32 upgraded from L64 - same as Tris and Jess, better than Alex) deserves to go, and would make up a full team in MS.

Why bother with a "qualification standard" when they are just going to be picking who they "think" are the people "good enough" to go?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the selected people shouldn't be selected because they haven't got L16+L32, I am saying we should just have full teams based on some transparent objective selection method (e.g. ranking)

Smoke and mirrors again. Mind you it is probably more smoke than mirrors.

They probably say to UKSport:
X years ago only 20% of our fencers made it past the 1st round in the WC.
Now, 100% of our fencers made it past the 1st round.

Look a 5 fold improvement!

Reality:
X years ago we sent 15 fencers and 3 made it through
Now we send 2 and all made it through

Yes, we are getting more headline results like Kruse's L8 at the Olympics, but IMHO that's down to the individual rather than the system.

Threestain
-15th July 2005, 10:22
I actually got 2 Last 64s (out of 3 comps, 2 being GPs), 1 of which was definitely upgraded, and 1 of which is on the cusp of being so (have to wait and see from the updated results when poor Steve Domek finishes his exams and emerges from the awful revision hell-hole!).

But I believe the selection (for Men's Epee at least) was based on a team being sent that has in the past performed very well, with members having reached/nearly reached requisite standards. I think, but I'm not sure and don't want to cause cause ructions because of an incorrect assumption.

ChubbyHubby
-15th July 2005, 10:40
Originally posted by Threestain
But I believe the selection (for Men's Epee at least) was based on a team being sent that has in the past performed very well, with members having reached/nearly reached requisite standards.

The question I suppose is how did the ME team get to become a team that has performed in the past? Was a case of a group of individuals who happen to work together as a team by chance or is it the system developing a team?


Originally posted by Threestain
I think, but I'm not sure and don't want to cause cause ructions because of an incorrect assumption.

Just illustrates the murky world of the selection process, too much smoke around :confused: :transport

IMHO everyone who has been selected deserves to go. I am just questioning are the selectors saying by not selecting any WEpeeists that even a recently crowned British Champion is not good enough to go.

ie. the best our system has produced is not good enough.

Gangsta G
-15th July 2005, 11:46
Presumably the selection committee will be able to justify their actions? ;)

tigger
-15th July 2005, 11:55
Sorry Tris - my mistake. I don't question the fact that you and the other epeeists deserve your place. I have a lot of respect for the performances you guys have produced. But i certainly believe that Chris Buxton in MS deserves a place. Don't know enough about WE to comment. I do know that in MS the last 1.5 seasons has been the most active for years on the World Cup tour for GB fencers. A lot of guys have been getting out there, learning the ropes and getting some results. I believe the best of those deserve a shot at the worlds.

Threestain
-15th July 2005, 13:00
Don't worry Jon, think I'm one of the only ones who knows and that's only cos I was there! (It got left off the June ranking so unless someone actually saw me fence then it might be forgivable not to know ;))

I agree that there are definitely deserving cases but for whatever reason they weren't selected (for example Chris might have been asked but might have been unavailable - not that I'm saying this happened but it is an explaination).

The team has worked together before as ME have been keen to do the team events, even when they were seperate from actual individual comps (i.e. going to Team World Cups for the fun of fencing 3 fights). Over the last 4 or so years the top of men's epee has stayed much the same and so team events have become organised and the 'team' more stable. I think its a mixture of the two, meaning a happy situation where the team can operate properly even when a 'regular' is missing.

asylum-seeker
-15th July 2005, 18:14
Originally posted by tigger WS Jess Lacheta - Jess has 1 x L32 (an upgraded L64) and a L128 (downgraded from L64) [/B]

Jess hasn't quite made the team on Individual results but her performance in the team over the last few years has been amazing, speacial mention to her perfoamnce in the team at the Europeans where she actually fenced better than Jo, Louise and Chrystall put together in the match against Poland! Nice one Girly!

This will make her very important for the team at the Senior Worlds, and competitng in the Individual can only do good for raising her adrenilin for the Team event.

It is a shame that Chris Buxton hasn't been selected, but like someone else mentioned i am sure there is good reason for this. The international commitee meeting held last Monday was a chance for all the selector to discuss this.

Alex has gained a lot of international experience over the last few years. He hasnt has any Senior international resluts this year as im pretty sure he hasn't had the time. But remember that he competed at the Senior Europeans last year where he made a L32 at only the age of 15 (I think) which is fantastic and i bet he will be so hungry for more after his win at the worlds.

Good luck to the whole team i say, no matter how or why they have been selected.

marg
-15th July 2005, 18:42
I think its a great shame that Chris Buxton isn't going too. I feel he deserves a shot at the worlds. I know he is taking his training seriously now having moved to Budapest to train with the top Hungarians. It would be great to send a team of 3 male sabreurs to support each other and Chris fencing at his best is a pretty formidable opponant as most sabreurs in this country would testify.:(

Foilling Around
-15th July 2005, 21:58
Originally posted by Gangsta G
Presumably the selection committee will be able to justify their actions? ;)

But by BF rules they don't have to. Whatever the rights of wrongs of Boos case for selection, when she appealed the committee simpy had to show they had followed their own rules. If the rules are not tightly drawn that is easy to do.

The problem comes when there are qualification criteria, but the committee has the right to overlook them. If they do so then there will always be the argument that fencer should also have an exception made.

Foilling Around
-15th July 2005, 22:11
Originally posted by asylum-seeker
Good luck to the whole team i say, no matter how or why they have been selected.

Great for those who have been selected, but I would want to know exactly what I needed to do to be selected.

I would not want to fail to meet a criteria then find that someone else, who has also failed to meet a criteria, has been selected for some undisclosed reason.

ChubbyHubby
-16th July 2005, 15:20
Originally posted by Foilling Around
Great for those who have been selected, but I would want to know exactly what I needed to do to be selected.
That bit is actually quite clear. Get the qualification standard and they have to let you go. The bit that isn't is how to you get to go if you are not qualified.


Originally posted by Foilling Around

I would not want to fail to meet a criteria then find that someone else, who has also failed to meet a criteria, has been selected for some undisclosed reason.

The "undisclosed reason" could probably just be the selectors just wants to select who they want to go.

BUT why doesn't the selection rules just say that?

Instead of hiding a subjective selection procedure behind the need to meet "qualification standards"?

Only about 1 in 4 of the selected met the qualification standards, and the BFA is going *raise* the standard next year?

So only 1 in 5 next year will meet it if anyone does? And then what?

BFA Performance reports tend to say "our performance has improved" because we got more L16/8's this year etc.. And GBR fencers have been getting getter results

But it has nothing to do with raising qualification standards.

The two are not linked. One could argue that our performance program has been failing because more and more people DO NOT meet the target qualificiation standards. Of course you won't see that in the performance report.

IMHO qualification standards are there for only two purposes:

1) Pandering to UKSport need for improved statistics, and demonstrating there is a plan to raise standards. "No results rather than bad results" policy enables the statistics to be skewed.

2) Hiding an arbitary selection procedure behind "qualification standards"

Perhaps all this ranting should be in a letter to the Sword (and copied to UKSport) and get a response from the BFA. :soap:

tigger
-16th July 2005, 21:49
Jess hasn't quite made the team on Individual results but her performance in the team over the last few years has been amazing, speacial mention to her perfoamnce in the team at the Europeans where she actually fenced better than Jo, Louise and Chrystall put together in the match against Poland! Nice one Girly!

I'd like to reiterate - I'm NOT suggesting Jess shouldn't go. I'm good friends with Jess and also believe she deserves to go. I'm just saying there are others with equal results who ALSO deserve to go.

waster
-18th July 2005, 11:06
Originally posted by asylum-seeker
Alex ... hasnt has any Senior international resluts this year as im pretty sure he hasn't had the time.

ahhh. good old resluts. Shame Alex has missed out, though I haven't had the time for an senior international reslut myself. Not for ages. :offtopic:

tigger
-18th July 2005, 12:52
Trust me they're well worth putting the time in ;)

Jan O'C
-19th July 2005, 08:58
Originally posted by asylum-seeker

Alex has gained a lot of international experience over the last few years. He hasnt has any Senior international resluts this year as im pretty sure he hasn't had the time. But remember that he competed at the Senior Europeans last year where he made a L32 at only the age of 15 (I think) which is fantastic and i bet he will be so hungry for more after his win at the worlds.


Asylum-seeker is right - the bulk of the senior A Grades fell during the AS Exam timetable so although he was selected for them, Alex couldn't take the time off school. The Junior Europeans fell on the day of the last Maths A2 (which Alex is taking a year early -to try to clear some extra time for fencing next year) and David Sach went to much trouble to see if Alex could take it a day early. The examining board agreed but only if a teacher then travelled to Hungary with Alex (to make sure he didn't contact anyone to tell them what was in the paper) and quite frankly we couldn't afford the extra cost.

I agree with Jon that its a shame not to send Chris B (or indeed send Jon himself) and I know that for the Europeans Jon was willing to fund himself but still wasn't allowed to go. I'm sure the selection committee have their reasons and even discretionary selections like Alex must follow some criteria (even if we don't necessarily know what they are).

Easy for me to say all this when Alex has been selected but we have to have someone to make the decisions and I don't think they make them with the intention of upsetting anyone.

I wish all fencers who are going Good Luck and hope they all fence well and are satisfied that they have done themselves and GB fencing justice regardless of where they finish.

Foilling Around
-19th July 2005, 09:48
Originally posted by Jan O'C
Easy for me to say all this when Alex has been selected but we have to have someone to make the decisions and I don't think they make them with the intention of upsetting anyone.

I don't believe that the IC intends to upset anyone, and I don't even say that their decisions are wrong. The problem is one of transparency and accountability.

The rule is along the lines of, we have criteria for selection, but we can make exceptions. If the reasons for those exceptions are not made clear then we are open to charges of unfairness.

ChubbyHubby
-19th July 2005, 10:00
Originally posted by Jan O'C

Easy for me to say all this when Alex has been selected but we have to have someone to make the decisions and I don't think they make them with the intention of upsetting anyone.


I don't think anyone is upset or doubt that any of those selected deserve to go.

It's more the case of why we are not fielding full teams, and that the non selection of fencers with the same results as ones that are selected being the issue.

e.g. For the Euro Champs WF, 3 fencers had the same results but with none acheiving qualiication standard. The IC selected at that point the lowest ranked fencer at their discretion. Granted the selected fencer had good results in the past, but not during the qualification period.

The question is why the IC could not send all 3 fencers, since a) they are not paying for it, b)Nobody is being denied a place on the team if all were selected.

:(

JulianRose
-19th July 2005, 10:12
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
I don't think anyone is upset or doubt that any of those selected deserve to go.

It's more the case of why we are not fielding full teams, and that the non selection of fencers with the same results as ones that are selected being the issue.

e.g. For the Euro Champs WF, 3 fencers had the same results but with none acheiving qualiication standard. The IC selected at that point the lowest ranked fencer at their discretion. Granted the selected fencer had good results in the past, but not during the qualification period.

The question is why the IC could not send all 3 fencers, since a) they are not paying for it, b)Nobody is being denied a place on the team if all were selected.

:(

and then they could even do the team event as well!!!!

tigger
-20th July 2005, 10:51
But remember that he competed at the Senior Europeans last year where he made a L32

Actually a L64 - one place behind me :grin: but admittedly 15 years younger!

Jan - I think Alex fully deserves to go (and Neil). Alex is British Senior Champion, World Cadet Champion and a big prospect for 2012. But I also think it would be good for Alex, Neil, British fencing and of course Chris B (who despite his jaded looks is still only 24!) if Chris competed too, and then gave the other guys a chance to do the team event. We should be doing every team event possible to get the country's ranking up a few places, and to give our future Olympians the chance of gaining as much experience as possible against top-class opposition.

If British Fencing was genuinely shackled by the UK sport qualifying criteria then we wouldn't be sending any discretionary selections at all. I can see why the committee might decide not to send fencers who clearly are not out there trying to succeed internationally, but why they would reject someone of Chris's talent, who is out on the World Cup circuit, ranked 2nd in the UK, with the second best A grade results of our male sabreurs and has moved to Hungary to train properly, is completely beyond me.


or indeed send Jon himself
I don't think I deserve to go this year - but I'm certain I'll make it there before the end of my career.

JulianRose
-20th July 2005, 11:51
Originally posted by tigger
We should be doing every team event possible to get the country's ranking up a few places, and to give our future Olympians the chance of gaining as much experience as possible against top-class opposition.



speaking of which, would you fancy trying to get a team together to go to do santiago and caracas next year? (santiago is a team, and then caracas is individual? they are a week apart.

Jan O'C
-20th July 2005, 15:05
Originally posted by tigger

I don't think I deserve to go this year - but I'm certain I'll make it there before the end of my career.

Tigger, you always deserve to go because you always give it 100%! I don't understand enough about why the IC choose who they choose or why they only choose to take 2 instead of 3 (Chris B is indeed a lovely fencer and very dedicated to his fencing) - everything you say makes sense but I still think they must have their reasons. As I said before, I'm sure they don't intentionally set out to upset anyone.

PM1
-20th July 2005, 19:41
I really hope to be able to find some answers about all this some time soon. There will be reasons, and probably very sensible ones, but like most issues, if you don't get told, you suspect the worst.

Having said that, good luck to all of those selceted - go go GB !!:grin:

UglyBug
-21st July 2005, 13:06
While we're complaining about this - why does the selection for the Universiade appear tougher than the Worlds - eg. only LBW going for the WS, while Jess Lacheta is not but is going to the Worlds?

ChubbyHubby
-21st July 2005, 13:55
Originally posted by UglyBug
While we're complaining about this - why does the selection for the Universiade appear tougher than the Worlds

Actually, it isn't.

Qualification results don't get downgraded for Universiade qualification.

Don't know about LBW or Jess for WS but for WF...

In the Cairo A-grade in March. Camy (along with Boo and Anna B.) got L16s.

For WC qualification these were downgraded to L64 (due to a low NIFF count).

For Universiade qualification, the L16 counted as a qualification L16 (no downgrading applicable in Universiade selection rules).

All smoke and mirrors again.....

Marcos
-21st July 2005, 14:25
Originally posted by tigger


but I'm certain I'll make it there before the end of my career.

even if you, or anyone else who works hard (Boo, etc), don't hit "qualifying standared" if you were Irish I'd be saying you should go

the experience you would gain, even if you did miserably, you would bring back to your club and bring into the domestic league.

it's a different scale, but a couple of us irish sabreurs have gone to comps abroad with admitedly limited success, but the guys we are teaching benefit tremendously and standared domestically improves accordingly

UglyBug
-21st July 2005, 14:54
Well I think Doc Ugly should go as the newest Norfolk Open Champion! He can be very awkward to 5, at least....

Gangsta G
-21st July 2005, 15:26
Originally posted by UglyBug
Well I think Doc Ugly should go as the newest Norfolk Open Champion! He can be very awkward to 5, at least.... He beat me which must be worth something! ;) I found him awkward until at least 10- or 11-4, by which time it was too late...

Threestain
-21st July 2005, 21:46
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
Actually, it isn't.

Qualification results don't get downgraded for Universiade qualification.

Don't know about LBW or Jess for WS but for WF...

In the Cairo A-grade in March. Camy (along with Boo and Anna B.) got L16s.

For WC qualification these were downgraded to L64 (due to a low NIFF count).

For Universiade qualification, the L16 counted as a qualification L16 (no downgrading applicable in Universiade selection rules).

All smoke and mirrors again.....

Of course it also goes the other way... no upgrading either.

Boo Boo
-21st July 2005, 22:11
Originally posted by Threestain
Of course it also goes the other way... no upgrading either.

How do you mean?

Boo

Gangsta G
-22nd July 2005, 01:40
Originally posted by Boo Boo
How do you mean? For worlds qualification, results from 'weak' events will be downgraded, results from 'strong' events will be upgraded, etc. For Universiade qualification, a L16 (or whatever) will be a L16, no matter how weak/strong the comp was.

ChubbyHubby
-22nd July 2005, 09:03
Originally posted by Threestain
Of course it also goes the other way... no upgrading either.

True, but in practice you can (for UNI qualifications) go to a weak A-grade get your L16 and be qualified.

But you can't say for WC, plan to go to a strong A-grade in the hope you can get a result that will be upgraded.

ie. it's got to be easier going to a weak A-grade with an incomplete L32 to get a L16 than go to a super strong GP to get a L32 that gets upgraded.

If a L16 from a particular event was good enough for Uni qualification, what is it only counted as L64 for EC and WC?

The point I am trying to make is that it is another example of smoke and mirrors by the BFA. For Universiade BUSA is happy with a L16, for UKSport the same L16 is deemed too weak.

So the same L16 is represented to BUSA as a good result, but the BFA is effectively saying the same L16 is not good enough for UKSport related selection criteria.


[Disclamier: Please don't think I am putting down the acheivements of any of the selected fencers or other fencers. Just picking a bone with BFA/IC (again!)]

tigger
-22nd July 2005, 09:18
Of course next season there will be no upgrading of results at all...but there'll still be downgrading! Not logical captain!

Boo Boo
-22nd July 2005, 09:28
Originally posted by Gangsta G
For worlds qualification, results from 'weak' events will be downgraded, results from 'strong' events will be upgraded, etc. For Universiade qualification, a L16 (or whatever) will be a L16, no matter how weak/strong the comp was.

No, I understand what upgrading is, but not what Threestain is refering to regarding the Universiade.

Supposedly a L16 at a senior A-grade is required for selection, but not everybody selected has attained this (http://www.britishfencing.com/worldunivgames.html). Which seems odd to me, because I thought that was a British WUG team requirement (and not a BFA one...). Hence the lack of upgrading/downgrading etc...

Anyway, I am sure that the team the BFA wanted to go, it going...

Boo

Boo Boo
-22nd July 2005, 09:31
Originally posted by tigger
Of course next season there will be no upgrading of results at all...but there'll still be downgrading! Not logical captain!

Would this affect who is being sent to the worlds this year?

It's obviously been considered a dangerous lophole that might let some undesirables in ...

Boo

Marcos
-22nd July 2005, 10:12
rather than upgrading / downgrading, which obviously is a bone of contention, how about simply saying that of your two L32's (or whatever) one must be from a strong zone.


so in WS it might be

"Qualification for World Championships is two L32 in A grade, of which one must be from Europe or North America"


job done, everyone can plan in advance, and if they want to go to an A grade in Antarctica, so be it, but you know you have to still produce in a strong event.

as i've said, i don't want to criticise the UK when Irl are so far behind and have other different problems, but hate to see good fencers frustrated, wherever they are from (and these discussions give me ideas to take away anyway).

Boo Boo
-22nd July 2005, 10:33
Originally posted by Marcos
as i've said, i don't want to criticise the UK

No, please, go ahead... :)

tigger
-22nd July 2005, 13:35
Even within europe the A grades are very variable. Warsaw, Moscow and Budapest are very, very tough. Madrid, Padua and Athens slightly less so. Bulgaria another notch down. I actually think the upgrading/downgrading works well. One of the few good ideas on ranking/points/qualification that's been introduced over the last few years. So of course we'd better do away with it! How a L32 at an event with a 600 Nif can be considered equal to a L32 at an event with a 1500 Nif is beyond me.

Equally I don't think that whether there are 63 or 65 fencers in the DE tableau should affect whether you score domestic points or not though!

Threestain
-22nd July 2005, 13:46
You can in theory go and find a smaller A-Grade to get your last 16. Unfortunately in Men's Epee, there aren't any anymore - at least not without spending a lot of money to go somewhere very foreing, and even these are actually quite tough.

You can also qualify for the universiade by a last 8 in a world cup team event, or a last 8 in a junior comp.

Gangsta G
-22nd July 2005, 14:03
Originally posted by Boo Boo
No, I understand what upgrading is, but not what Threestain is refering to regarding the Universiade.

Supposedly a L16 at a senior A-grade is required for selection, but not everybody selected has attained this (http://www.britishfencing.com/worldunivgames.html). Which seems odd to me, because I thought that was a British WUG team requirement (and not a BFA one...). Hence the lack of upgrading/downgrading etc... Sorry Boo - misunderstood your original post slightly.

Incidentally, what is Universiade?

ChubbyHubby
-22nd July 2005, 14:13
Originally posted by Gangsta G
what is Universiade?

Also known as World Student Games or World University Games. Held every 2 years.

It is the second largest sporting event behind the olympics in terms of competitors/events.

Standard is world class, for fencing most of the teams are virtually unchanged from WC lineups (except where people are too old for the 28years old age limit)

Fencers from a lot of "professional" countries are classified as students because they are in the police academy(e.g. Italians) or some sort of "sport science" student.

Marcos
-22nd July 2005, 14:15
Originally posted by tigger
Even within europe the A grades are very variable.

all fair enough - but sounds like someone is spending a huge amount figuring the relative weight of comps!

and in the long run, the increased complexity can only lead to holes in the system - you just can't account for every eventuality (as I am finding drawing-up the funding formula for Irish fencers)

vil
-22nd July 2005, 23:57
Originally posted by tigger
How a L32 at an event with a 600 Nif can be considered equal to a L32 at an event with a 1500 Nif is beyond me.
This makes me wonder why the selection criteria isn't based on the ranking points system. After all, the whole purpose of that is to measure the strength of everyones performance relative to the difficulty of the competitions. Why not set the criteria as "must have scored X points in an A-grade competition"?

Just a thought... :transport

PM1
-23rd July 2005, 00:09
oh no.....is this common sense talking?????:confused: :confused: :tongue:

ChubbyHubby
-24th July 2005, 11:13
Originally posted by vil
Why not set the criteria as "must have scored X points in an A-grade competition"?



Because then it wouldn't look as good to UKSport in the performance report.

Say someone qualified by going to all the small A-grades and got enough points to equal to say one L16 in a strong A-grade.

The same person then gets selected to go to the WC and gets mushed in the 1st Round.

Someone else qualifies by getting a L8 in a strong A-grade and goes to the WC and gets a L32.

Instead of having stats of 100% fencers reached L32, the stats would have to say 50% sent to the WC got through the first round.

Don't forget the BFA policy of "no results is better than bad results".

IMHO the fairest way for selection is top 3 in rankings go by right. If anyone reaches the "qualification standard" whatever that might be, they get funded in the next year. Everyone else pay their own way.

ChubbyHubby
-24th July 2005, 11:19
To get around the problem of key team members being injured, hold a US style "trials" competition a short time before the WC/EC which only the top 8 are invited and load it with points.

Make an event of it (Royal Armories style), add some cash prizes.

The purpose of the event is say there is a fencer obviously a class above the rest and he/she is injured, they can still go to the trials and win it and get selected. If they are that good, they should be able to do it.

Also by having the trials a short time before whatever event, injury is not an excuse, if you are not fully fit then, you wont be for the WC/EC.

So perhaps amend my "top 3 get to go" selection method. It could be Top 2 go by right, the third spot goes to the winner of the trials.

If one of the top 2 wins the trials then No.3 in the ranking takes the final place.

JulianRose
-24th July 2005, 12:16
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
To get around the problem of key team members being injured, hold a US style "trials" competition a short time before the WC/EC which only the top 8 are invited and load it with points.

Make an event of it (Royal Armories style), add some cash prizes.

The purpose of the event is say there is a fencer obviously a class above the rest and he/she is injured, they can still go to the trials and win it and get selected. If they are that good, they should be able to do it.

Also by having the trials a short time before whatever event, injury is not an excuse, if you are not fully fit then, you wont be for the WC/EC.

So perhaps amend my "top 3 get to go" selection method. It could be Top 2 go by right, the third spot goes to the winner of the trials.

If one of the top 2 wins the trials then No.3 in the ranking takes the final place.

or make the winner of the trials the fourth member of the team! so that there is a reserve for the team event!

gbm
-24th July 2005, 12:29
Just a little stirring now...
Which is better... sending only a few fencers and only the odd team to the Worlds, but funding them, then sending only a few fencers and teams to the Europeans, who are self-funded anyway, OR sending full teams and our entire quota of fencers and teams to both, but self-funded?
(of course if you are a funded fencer you might see it a little differently ;) )

ChubbyHubby
-24th July 2005, 16:07
Originally posted by goodbadandme
OR sending full teams and our entire quota of fencers and teams to both, but self-funded?
(of course if you are a funded fencer you might see it a little differently ;) )

You are missing the point, I am saying "Send our entire quota and only fund those who acheive a certain standard."

vil
-24th July 2005, 20:41
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
Say someone qualified by going to all the small A-grades and got enough points to equal to say one L16 in a strong A-grade.

That's not quite what I meant. I was thinking that the qualification criteria should say (for example) "must have achieved 2000 points in one A-grade competition and 1000 points in another" instead of "must have got a L16 and a L32". The point is just that that NIF is supposed to be a measure of the strength of a competition, so there's no need for any of this upgrading/downgrading business.


IMHO the fairest way for selection is top 3 in rankings go by right. If anyone reaches the "qualification standard" whatever that might be, they get funded in the next year. Everyone else pay their own way.

I agree, this sounds like a much better approach.

PM1
-24th July 2005, 23:18
Humour me, just for a minute please. As I understand it, down/up grading all stems from the final calculation of NIF's at each comp. But no one knows what the NIF will be (altho' there will be a historical NIF to work from, I guess) BEFORE the comp day. WHY should a comp's results be down graded by BFA? Is it the competitior's fault that they have chosen to go to a comp which happens to suffer downgrading? I seem to remember this having happened to Tigger this year, as well as Boo and others.

For what it is worth, I say send full teams: those who achieve qualifiying standard get subsidised; those that don't, still have the chance to go, but pay for themselves.

BTW - who pays for the officials/refs/physios/team managers to go, etc??

Innocent questions all, BTW....

ChubbyHubby
-25th July 2005, 00:04
Originally posted by PM1

BTW - who pays for the officials/refs/physios/team managers to go, etc??



I'd say costs should be split between all fencers, the BFA pays the funded fencers' share, the rest pay their own share.

ChubbyHubby
-25th July 2005, 10:24
Originally posted by PM1
WHY should a comp's results be down graded by BFA? Is it the competitior's fault that they have chosen to go to a comp which happens to suffer downgrading? I seem to remember this having happened to Tigger this year, as well as Boo and others.


It's designed to make sure people can't qualify for EC/WC by going to easier a-grades and to reward good performances at strong ones.

It doesn't affect the number of points you get. A L16 will always get you the L16 points (for the NIFs that are there), but if it is deemed to be too easy it is downgraded by one or two rounds (ie. down to L32 or L64) for qualification purposes.

For EC qualification, the L16 by Camy, Boo and Anna B were counted as L64's (but they all got L16 ranking points) and this was the only qualifying result by any WF by the EC selection date.

From this result the selectors decided that only one fencer was good enough to go but not the other two, leaving the two remaining team places remaining vacant... (yada yada yada..no need to repeat my ranting on this)

The same L16 however is counted as a L16 for Camy's World Student Games (Universiade) because there is no up/down grading for WSG qualification.

The official line is that the qualification standards are there to ensure only fencers who have reached a certain standard in the qualification will get to go to the EC/WC.

Of course we all know that isn't true.... ;)

Boo Boo
-25th July 2005, 10:35
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
The same L16 however is counted as a L16 for Camy's World Student Games (Universiade) because there is no up/down grading for WSG qualification.

There may be no up/down grading for WSG, BUT there is still a lot of discretion - look at the selected team: http://www.britishfencing.com/worldunivgames.html - four of those going did not have a L16 in a senior A-grade.

That is not to say that those who have received discretion should not go, just that there is no transparency in the selection process...

Boo

The Truth
-25th July 2005, 12:54
1. There's a selection system that clearly sets out a set of criteria, which if met result in automatic selection. If these are not met, the selectors exercise their discretion to select the best fencers that they believe should go. By definition, exercising discretion is subjective and open to debate.

2. In my view, (and that of course is subjective) the selectors have not selected any fencer to go to Leipzig (or the Europeans), when a better one at the same weapon has not been sent. This means that they are ranking correctly when using their discretion.

3. The issue is then two-fold. Where should the qualification standard be set for automatic selection. And where this is not met how good do you have to be to go. Obviously Chubby et al. feel that the standard is too high and that a full team should always be sent. That's a point of view. I have some sympathy with the first part.

4. The only bit that is not transparent is where you have failed to meet the qualification standard, where is the line drawn for discretionary selection. If you try and define this line transparently, then you do away with the qualification standard as all that matters is that you meet the lower threshold for selection. That I don't think would be a good thing as some level of qualifying standard is a proper incentive and goal. It would though obviously dispense with any selector discretion.

5. Finally, a fair bit of this and the previous thread on the Europeans has been dissecting results to show that either no WFs should go/ have gone or three should go/ have gone. Give Cami a break. She is clearly the best Womens Foilist by a long way, and is worth her place on the EC, WC, and student team. If you don't like the system, argue where the thresholds should be set, don't personalise it.

And that's........

JulianRose
-25th July 2005, 13:08
Originally posted by The Truth
1. There's a selection system that clearly sets out a set of criteria, which if met result in automatic selection. If these are not met, the selectors exercise their discretion to select the best fencers that they believe should go. By definition, exercising discretion is subjective and open to debate.

2. In my view, (and that of course is subjective) the selectors have not selected any fencer to go to Leipzig (or the Europeans), when a better one at the same weapon has not been sent. This means that they are ranking correctly when using their discretion.

3. The issue is then two-fold. Where should the qualification standard be set for automatic selection. And where this is not met how good do you have to be to go. Obviously Chubby et al. feel that the standard is too high and that a full team should always be sent. That's a point of view. I have some sympathy with the first part.

4. The only bit that is not transparent is where you have failed to meet the qualification standard, where is the line drawn for discretionary selection. If you try and define this line transparently, then you do away with the qualification standard as all that matters is that you meet the lower threshold for selection. That I don't think would be a good thing as some level of qualifying standard is a proper incentive and goal. It would though obviously dispense with any selector discretion.

5. Finally, a fair bit of this and the previous thread on the Europeans has been dissecting results to show that either no WFs should go/ have gone or three should go/ have gone. Give Cami a break. She is clearly the best Womens Foilist by a long way, and is worth her place on the EC, WC, and student team. If you don't like the system, argue where the thresholds should be set, don't personalise it.

And that's........

i htink though that the problem is that where the selectors have used their discretion (quite rightly to send cammy) there were others who achieved the same result at the same competition as her and that if these other two fencers had been sent then a team could have been entered into the team.

personally i think that all three should have gone. also the discretion has not been applied equally accross all weapons, although i think this is much less of an issue.

Marcos
-25th July 2005, 13:14
all neatly spelled out

in fairness i don't think anyone is attacking Datoo - fencing is a small community so when you talk specifically about this kind of thing you inevitably are talking about one or two people.

edit - agree with Julian - the women in question are in the top 100 in the world after all.

ChubbyHubby
-25th July 2005, 14:57
Originally posted by The Truth
Give Cami a break. She is clearly the best Womens Foilist by a long way, and is worth her place on the EC, WC, and student team. If you don't like the system, argue where the thresholds should be set, don't personalise it.


I don't think any of the arguements set out is attacking Camy in anyway. She is the best WF by a margin, and she deserves her place on the EC/WC/WSG teams.

The arguement is with the BFA/IC, in the case of EC - at the selection date all three WFs in question had the same results.

During the selection period, all three have shown the same form and while Camy has a past track record, what problems would it have caused if all three were sent?

It wasn't a case of deciding between them, there was space on the team for all three.

The other issue as you say is what the qualification requirements levels should be.

For the WC why set it so high when very few (if any in some weapons) will get it. And then the bar keeps getting raised even when actual results are not keeping up. What is the reason for this other than to fool UKSport into thinking standards are being raised?

Why does the qualification requirements have to be raised again for next year? Hardly anyone got them this year.


Originally posted by The Truth

4. The only bit that is not transparent is where you have failed to meet the qualification standard, where is the line drawn for discretionary selection. If you try and define this line transparently, then you do away with the qualification standard as all that matters is that you meet the lower threshold for selection. That I don't think would be a good thing as some level of qualifying standard is a proper incentive and goal. It would though obviously dispense with any selector discretion.

I agree having a level of qualifying standard is good, but it must be a realistic one. Qualifying standards are only an incentive if it is realistic.

If you were a high jumper and someone moves the bar 5cm higher than your personal best, you'd give it a good go. If someone moves it to 10m high, I'd hazard a guess that you'd walk away.

If the qualification requirement is a realistic one, then it can be strict one and selector discretion would not be required other than special circumstances like injury.

One suggestion perhaps is to have a two tier qualification standard:

1) "Good enough to go" standard - this would be a realistic one rather than a politically driven one. A strict minimum standard where one must reach in order to be selected.

2) "Performance target" standard - this could be the higher standard that is used to push fencers to strive for better results. The incentive would be funding or extra funding if the fencer is already funded.

I realise UKSport limits the number of funded fencers, and that there could be a problem if lots of fencers made the "performance target". This is where you can set the standard to be high enough that only the very best performances can acheive the standard.

The Truth
-25th July 2005, 16:04
I think the idea of a dual qualification standard as Chubby suggests is a good and workable one.

Now all you need to do is argue about where the lower bar is set as you can be aggressive as you like with the upper one.

Any takers for 2 x L64, finishing in top 75%, strength adjustment applying, no need to worry about winning a DE fight?

ChubbyHubby
-25th July 2005, 16:30
Originally posted by The Truth

Any takers for 2 x L64, finishing in top 75%, strength adjustment applying, no need to worry about winning a DE fight?

I take it this is for WC qualification?

And since the level suggested here is L64, the point about not having to win a DE fight is also a very important, as many A-grades (even GPs) cut straight to L64. It would be unfair to suggest in cases like that you'd need a L32 which is a whole order of magnitude more difficult.

So maybe 1xL64 for EC and 2xL64 for WC? (Yes, I know EC is actually a more difficult competition but it would look odd to have the standard the other way around)

Boo Boo
-25th July 2005, 18:51
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
I don't think any of the arguements set out is attacking Camy in anyway. She is the best WF by a margin, and she deserves her place on the EC/WC/WSG teams.

Very true.

There is absolutely no intention to attack Camy in the least - unfortunately she had to be used an example, because it was a specific case of selection inequality (again, nothing to do with Camy at all).

The current WC qualifying criteria are obviously too high - only four/five people actually achieved them I believe (i.e. a properly adjusted 16 and 32). I was told (rumour mill?) that the WC qualifying criteria for next year would be a L8 and a L16...

Yes, there should always be goals and challenges to stretch our fencers to achieve their best (and beyond). But there must be realistic goals, otherwise seniors may just see no point and quit (and that benefits no-one). Stepping those goals (i.e. achieving certain ones allow eligibility for the EC/WC and more amibtious goals allow eligibility for funding) makes the most sense :)

However, somebody very prominant in the BFA, has suggested that qualification standards may be scrapped altogether and ANY/ALL selection will be at the discretion of the BFA Performance Director...

Boo

vil
-31st July 2005, 09:58
It looks like it's not just fencing where the bar for international qualification has been set too high. I saw a bit of the World Swimming Championships on telly yesterday. After one of the races, there was an interview with the head UK swimming coach; one of the questions was "the UK's qualification requirements are some of the toughest in the world, so why do we still get such comparatively poor international results?"

This makes me wonder if there is actually a wider problem, caused by the way UK Sport structures its funding...?

D'Artignan
-17th August 2005, 22:25
Originally posted by vil
It looks like it's not just fencing where the bar for international qualification has been set too high. I saw a bit of the World Swimming Championships on telly yesterday. After one of the races, there was an interview with the head UK swimming coach; one of the questions was "the UK's qualification requirements are some of the toughest in the world, so why do we still get such comparatively poor international results?"

This makes me wonder if there is actually a wider problem, caused by the way UK Sport structures its funding...? Sorry about the thread revival thing (again), but I think Mr Harvey may be on to something as the athletes seem to have had their worst performance at any world championships in history (ok, not that long a history, but still...) and with the swimming also seemingly having the same sort of miserable time, I think the government need to take a look at funding for sports in general. Maybe the competitors are working so hard during the season they have precisely bugger all energy left when it comes to the times it really matters, ie the Worlds.

Just a thought...

Foilling Around
-17th August 2005, 23:18
Originally posted by The Truth
4. The only bit that is not transparent is where you have failed to meet the qualification standard, where is the line drawn for discretionary selection. If you try and define this line transparently, then you do away with the qualification standard as all that matters is that you meet the lower threshold for selection. That I don't think would be a good thing as some level of qualifying standard is a proper incentive and goal. It would though obviously dispense with any selector discretion.


Just catching up on this which came up whilst I was on holiday. This part of the argument doesn't make sense. As soon as you select one person who has not met the published criteria then you have lost part of the meaning of the criteria.

Yes, if you achieve it you will go, but if you don't then you still might make it. Problem is that you don't know how close you have to get to be made an exception.

It is really simple, if we have the right to send a team, why on earth are we not doing so (apart from to keep our figures up for UK Sport)

If you get the standard, then you qualify and are funded. If you don't make the qualifying results and you are next on the list then you have the right to go, but you have to fund yourself or find your own sponsorship.

Yes, we have a cr*p sports funding system in this country. A government which is happy to bask in sporting glory, but not prepared to fund a system which can deliver it.

We have a system where the professional sport, who could fund their own development, get most of the grant money and the minor sport such as ours have to scrape around for the crumbs. Will the 2012 Olympics change that? Will it buggery! We will have 7 years of increasing frustration at the end of which we will have achieved little as a sport. Reason - British TV has no interest in fencing. Unless we can get a fencer into the higher reaches of the sports departments of a major TV channel, they will never understand it and people are scared of or look down on those things they don't understand.

....and now its time for bed.

Boo Boo
-18th August 2005, 09:48
Originally posted by Foilling Around
Yes, if you achieve it you will go, but if you don't then you still might make it. Problem is that you don't know how close you have to get to be made an exception.

'Cos surely it does not come down to "how close you get", "but who you are".

If it came to "how close you got", three women foilists would have gone to the Europeans....

Boo
(will EVENTUALLY get over this... ;) )

aao
-18th August 2005, 11:16
I still don't get this fixation with funding being the root cause of all our ills, its a contributary factor nothing more.

The stark and unfortunate reality is that, the fencers in this country who do have the time and funding to train at a competitive level, either don't for the most part have the drive or in some cases unfortunately the talent to be in the top 50 in the world (roughly the level at which, people get consistent results of 16s and over at A-grades, worlds etc)

There are of course some noticeable exceptions to this, Mr O'connell, Richard Kruse etc. But my point is that there is only a very small percentage of people in any sport who will have the ability mentally or physically to make it to the top, it doesn't matter how much money you chuck at people, if they are lacking in either of those two areas they're not going to be good enough. If they do posses those abilities, then they will tend to rise to the top anyway. (Basically i don't buy into the idea that we have a whole bunch of potential world no 1's who are being held back by a lack of funding)

JulianRose
-18th August 2005, 14:08
i think we do have the potential to be doing a lot better than we are currently doing, and should be able to have several people inside the top 100 in the world at each weapon.

this would help to give a target for others to try to reach and do better than in the future.

Boo Boo
-18th August 2005, 21:46
Originally posted by JulianRose
i think we do have the potential to be doing a lot better than we are currently doing, and should be able to have several people inside the top 100 in the world at each weapon.

Top 100 in the world doesn't mean very much...

JulianRose
-18th August 2005, 21:53
it means more than not being top 100 in the world. in order to get into the top 100 in Mens sabre you now need 14 world cup points, which is no mean feat! ok you are not necessarily going to win the world champs by doing this but it is a start!

No of World cups for each weapon to be in top 100 at present

MS 14
WS 8
MF 14
WF 10
ME 16
WE 10

none of these are partiularly easy!

Boo Boo
-18th August 2005, 21:56
Originally posted by JulianRose
ok you are not necessarily going to win the world champs by doing this but it is a start!

Or even be good enough to go to the World Championships...

JulianRose
-18th August 2005, 21:57
Originally posted by Boo Boo
Or even be good enough to go to the World Championships...

at least not under the current criteria!!!

personally i think that should be enough!

Boo Boo
-18th August 2005, 21:58
Originally posted by JulianRose
personally i think that should be enough!

I agree..... ;)

haggis
-19th August 2005, 07:04
Had a quick look at the world rankings and there are currently 10 Brits ranked in the top 100 across the weapons (including Boo boo). Would mean that there be no epeeists of either gender nor any male sabreurs qualified but we would have 5 female sabreurs that fitted the bill.

Mens Epee - none (Highest ranked Brit - Tom Cadman at 112)
Womens Epee - none (Top Brit - Margo Young at 136)
Mens Foil - 2 (Richard Kruse at 35 and James Beevers at 97)
Womens Foil - 3 (Camille Datoo at 62, Lois Chang 86, Anna Bentley 87)
Mens Sabre - none (Top Brit - Stewart Watson at 129)
Womens Sabre - 5 (Louise Bond-Williams at 19, Jo Hutchison 33, Chrystall Nicoll 53, Beth Davidson 90 and CAr Stevenson 99).

I know that this suggests I have too much time on my hands but also that GB representation at the Worlds wouldn't any greater than it currently is and that only the female foilists and sabreurs would have a team.

Regards

Haggis

ChubbyHubby
-19th August 2005, 08:40
Originally posted by haggis
that only the female foilists ...... would have a team.


:dizzy: :lolbash: (in a very cynical way).

Being in the top 100 doesn't ensure you won't screw up their UKSport stats and therefore whether it is right there should be a team, or whether it would be good for developing better fencers probably doesn't seem to matter. :upset:

Boo Boo
-19th August 2005, 09:41
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
:dizzy: :lolbash: (in a very cynical way).

Been listening to Avril Lavigne in the car on the way to work... showing your angst ridden teenage side again... :grin:

cesh_fencing
-19th August 2005, 19:17
If it were not for the funding requirements set by sport england, we would probably still be sending full teams to the worlds/europeans and at least having the chance of people getting results.

Back a decade or so I am sure we always sent full teams, some got slaughtered but sometimes we did better than expected.

As per most events the first time you go you are at a disadvantage as you are thrilled to be there. On the following occassions you know what is happening and have a better fighting chance to do well.

We should always send a full team even if only those who meet the criteria get funding. The experience pays in the long term...

The old argument will probably come up that those who do not have the money cannot afford to go to the worlds if not funded, however if they want to go they will get the money from somewhere.

Anita Blake
-20th August 2005, 12:30
Originally posted by haggis

Womens Epee - none (Top Brit - Margo Young at 136)

Haggis


Um. Says something, doesn't it?

haggis
-22nd August 2005, 06:52
Originally posted by Anita Blake
Um. Says something, doesn't it?

What would you suggest it says?;)

Regards

Haggis

Andy W.
-3rd September 2005, 20:56
I've just read this thread through...........very interesting, so if selection is hobbled by the need to massage the stats rather than maximising our fencers exposure to international competition how are they going to get any better/develop?

Secondly (very slightly tongue in cheek this bit), if the BFA standard is too high which countries are a better bet for qualification//selection? I have Irish, American, German and Belgian near ancestors and my wife can add Italian and Irish as well. So 'if' junior could get a passport from any of these countires which would be the best/easiest one to get her an entry at a world comp in about 6 years time? :grin:

JulianRose
-4th September 2005, 09:20
Irish or Belgian, but you would have to approach whichever nations fencing board and talk to them.

Gangsta G
-4th September 2005, 11:22
Originally posted by Andy W.
I've just read this thread through Must have taken you an awfully long time

tigger
-5th September 2005, 09:15
Have no idea what the Belgian system is like, but the Irish seem to have an improving support structure, and a realistic approach to funding, incentive and qualification for major champs.

I'd fence for them if I could - sadly only a great grandparent from the Emerald Isle is not enough! One of our budding sabreurs has the option, and is in the process of applying for an Irish passport - he's already had more information and support than I've ever had in GB, and he's a future prospect who's not even in their team yet!

Jan O'C
-5th September 2005, 11:32
Alex and Grace could both fence for Ireland - Michael is from Eire and my Dad was from N Ireland, so they could do either - wonder if you can have one sibling fencing for one country and one for another? That would be entertaining.

Glue Boy
-5th September 2005, 14:17
Please adopt me then, i'm trying to find out if i'm able to fence for anybody else. I may be a little bit scottish.

JulianRose
-5th September 2005, 14:43
or course if you fence for ireland then you cannot go to the commonwealths! unless is for northern ireland!

Boo Boo
-5th September 2005, 14:52
Originally posted by JulianRose
or course if you fence for ireland then you cannot go to the commonwealths! unless is for northern ireland!

Pros and Cons - it would be, I guess, easier to qualify for the World Champs for Eire than for GB...

Boo

pinkelephant
-5th September 2005, 15:07
One of my dogs is Welsh.........................?

Boo Boo
-5th September 2005, 15:14
Originally posted by pinkelephant
One of my dogs is Welsh.........................?

Which weapon does s/he fence? ;)

Marcos
-5th September 2005, 15:40
Originally posted by tigger
Have no idea what the Belgian system is like, but the Irish seem to have an improving support structure, and a realistic approach to funding, incentive and qualification for major champs.

I'd fence for them if I could - sadly only a great grandparent from the Emerald Isle is not enough! One of our budding sabreurs has the option, and is in the process of applying for an Irish passport - he's already had more information and support than I've ever had in GB, and he's a future prospect who's not even in their team yet!


thanks - I'd missed this thread until now but good to hear the positive feedback.

Irish selection criteria is:
http://www.irishfencing.net/documents/SELECTIONCRITERIA20oct04.pdf

you need an irish grandparent to apply for an Irish passport and FIE licence...in the past it wasn't quite so strict but we and other sports have been hit with people who are, quite simply, not Irish.

that said, I represented Ireland through marriage (and to show the criteria is applied evenly, I've been top 1 or 2 in Ireland for 3 years but not been selected for A grades, despite being on the Commitee)

ps If any of the O'Connells would like to discuss qualification I'd be more than happy to detail how our funding works (and I'll send you the passport application myself!)


pps 5 Nations is a little different as those who have irish residency can be selected, hence Yves Carnec fencing for us the last few years.

Marcos
-5th September 2005, 15:48
pps if you are from Ulster I think you could fence for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealths and Ireland in FIE comps...it starts getting delicate from here....

as part of the Good Friday Agreement, if you were born in Ulster you are entitled to dual UK / Irish nationality...when it comes to FIE comps you need to declare for one or the other

I believe I have that right (happy to be corrected) but it could take the thread in a whole new direction...!


(when I say Ulster, this is shorthand for the 6 Northern Ireland Counties - purpose of the post is to generalise rather than enter a detailed discussion)

kingbob
-5th September 2005, 17:20
im abit scottish, irish and welsh,and of course English; messed up aint i? but the scottish, irish and welsh gos 2 far back so cant fence for any other than England.damn.i need 2 try now.:tongue:

kingbob
-5th September 2005, 17:23
Originally posted by Boo Boo
Pros and Cons - it would be, I guess, easier to qualify for the World Champs for Eire than for GB...

Boo

and you will probably get better funding.

JulianRose
-5th September 2005, 21:29
if alex wants to fence for ireland then he has to have his big absence from international fencing for however long that is. somehow think he may not want to do that!!!! (please correct if i am wrong Jan)

Boo Boo
-5th September 2005, 21:35
Originally posted by JulianRose
if alex wants to fence for ireland then he has to have his big absence from international fencing for however long that is. somehow think he may not want to do that!!!! (please correct if i am wrong Jan)

Only if GB object to him changing country... (although I expect they might!)

... there is supposedly something like a gap of 3 years between representing different countries at FIE events, but if both countries agree this gap can be waived (this was the case for Martina Emanuel - Italy agreed that she could go ahead and fence for GB straight away...).

Boo

Jan O'C
-5th September 2005, 21:55
Originally posted by JulianRose
if alex wants to fence for ireland then he has to have his big absence from international fencing for however long that is. somehow think he may not want to do that!!!! (please correct if i am wrong Jan)

No he doesn't have any desire to change who he fences for and he certainly wouldn't want an absence from international fencing - I was just thinking hypothetically - but if Grace progresses as we would hope it might be an option for her - certainly the paternal grandparents who live in Cork would be delighted!

Marcos
-6th September 2005, 07:25
Boo Boo is spot on - strictly there is a 3 year wait once you have taken out an FIE licence with a country before you can represent another, however, this can be waived if neither country objects and representations are made to the FIE (in fact this occurred this year where a Fencer switched from UK to Ireland)

...however, once you have changed you can't change back.

Marcos
-14th September 2005, 09:27
Originally posted by tigger
Have no idea what the Belgian system is like, but the Irish seem to have an improving support structure, and a realistic approach to funding, incentive and qualification for major champs.



http://www.irishfencing.net/news.htm

letter explaining the irish squad funding now available on website

randomsabreur
-14th September 2005, 10:09
Although from recent results, the decision will be quite soon for Grace!

Marcos
-15th September 2005, 09:46
i hope i'm not coming across as trying to poach anyone - simply giving information!

given the O'C's stunning results I'm sure they are more than happy with being English..!

JulianRose
-15th September 2005, 09:48
Originally posted by Marcos
i hope i'm not coming across as trying to poach anyone - simply giving information!

given the O'C's stunning results I'm sure they are more than happy with being English..!

even if it does come across that way, fair play its worth a go!!!

Helen Mulrine
-8th October 2005, 15:26
I see from the Italian web site, that Valentina Vezzali after having done the pouls for the 1st time since 1993, lost one fight to a Venezuelan and her D:E: is at 12.45 cet against Camille Datoo
tomorrow. Myself and my daughter Eleonora don't know who to shout for , we have a derby in the family tomorrow! In theory Valentina is a fencing monster, but she did have a baby exactly 4 months ago to the day.
This will be very interesting