PDA

View Full Version : WF Salzburg A Grade



Foilling Around
-30th April 2006, 13:21
I can't find any online results for this event so if anyone hears anything about the girls fortunes please can you post them.

Apart from wanting to know, it will mean I can complete the WF rankings as soon as I have the results and can work out the NIF

Boo Boo
-30th April 2006, 15:36
From what I have heard:

First rould poule:
Claire Bennett won 4
Kate Gardner won 2
Anna Bentley won 1
Elaine Hughes won 0

I don't know what the number of entries was, but apparently the organisers cut directly to the L64 (this was very harsh on Kate, because apparently she was seeded 65th! If they hadn't cut to 64, she would have had a good chance of winning the L128 fight and getting World Cup points...).

So only Claire made the cut, seeded 38th, but haven't had any updates today regarding how Claire did in the DE (all I know is that she was seeded to meet a French girl in the L64...). I would imagine that Claire WOULD finish in the top 50%: I assume that there were 76 or more entries and assume. So I assume that Claire will get British Ranking points.

Boo

Foilling Around
-30th April 2006, 18:00
From what I have heard:

First rould poule:
Claire Bennett won 4
Kate Gardner won 2
Anna Bentley won 1
Elaine Hughes won 0

I don't know what the number of entries was, but apparently the organisers cut directly to the L64 (this was very harsh on Kate, because apparently she was seeded 65th! If they hadn't cut to 64, she would have had a good chance of winning the L128 fight and getting World Cup points...).

So only Claire made the cut, seeded 38th, but haven't had any updates today regarding how Claire did in the DE (all I know is that she was seeded to meet a French girl in the L64...). I would imagine that Claire WOULD finish in the top 50%: I assume that there were 76 or more entries and assume. So I assume that Claire will get British Ranking points.

Boo

Cuts have to be 20 - 30% so minimum number present must have been 80 fencers. In addition to be seeded 38th on 7 victories would imply a minimum of say 12 poules of 7. I would therefore estimate 80 to 90 entrants. Therefore Claire will get ranking points. And that is on the presimistic assumption that she doesn't beat the 27th seed. If she is fencing well, which she must be to have won 4 fights, then it is always possible.

I'll have to pick up the full results from the FIE website tommorrow and post the rankings on Tuesday.

bydande
-2nd May 2006, 16:36
Results are up on the FIE website:

http://www.fie.ch/Competitions/ResultsList.aspx?Key=F3F8038DA56F4E72F4F174806E656 599

I have to admit to being quite fascinated by the range of DOB's shown in the results ........ 1949 to 1989

And even if you disregarded 1949 as an exceptional outlier - you are still left with a range of 1964 to 1989.

ChubbyHubby
-2nd May 2006, 17:27
And that is on the presimistic assumption that she doesn't beat the 27th seed. If she is fencing well, which she must be to have won 4 fights, then it is always possible.

I'll have to pick up the full results from the FIE website tommorrow and post the rankings on Tuesday.

Claire finished up below 50%. No points and doesn't count towards EC/WC qualifications. Which shows how harsh the new criteria to get points is.

Winning 4 fights in any A-grade poule is no easy feat. Same is true with Kate G.'s results earlier in the year.

How is the tougher qualification standards going to encourage a fencer to improve if they just acheived effectively their best result ever and have nothing to show for it?

Foilling Around
-2nd May 2006, 18:08
Claire finished up below 50%. No points and doesn't count towards EC/WC qualifications. Which shows how harsh the new criteria to get points is.

Winning 4 fights in any A-grade poule is no easy feat. Same is true with Kate G.'s results earlier in the year.

How is the tougher qualification standards going to encourage a fencer to improve if they just acheived effectively their best result ever and have nothing to show for it?


The problem is the very low entries for women's foil, typically 75 - 90. combined with the fact the British Women's foillists at present find it difficult to finish in the top half of the L64 never mind the L32.

Women's sabre would have the same problem, similar entry numbers, but British women's sabreurs tend to make L32 and even L16, so score points.

Boo Boo
-2nd May 2006, 18:12
The problem is the very low entries for women's foil, typically 75 - 90. combined with the fact the British Women's foillists at present find it difficult to finish in the top half of the L64 never mind the L32.

Women's sabre would have the same problem, similar entry numbers, but British women's sabreurs tend to make L32 and even L16, so score points.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head, for Women Foilists to gain a "L64" (as far as British points/qualifiers are concerned) you almost have to achieve a L32... if that makes sense.

Boo

Foilling Around
-2nd May 2006, 18:28
I think that you have hit the nail on the head, for Women Foilists to gain a "L64" (as far as British points/qualifiers are concerned) you almost have to achieve a L32... if that makes sense.

Boo


In fact I would say they generally need to achieve the top 25% of the L64, ie. placing between 33 and 40.

With the international competitiveness of British WF the state it is at present, then this is very difficult. I would suggest that the standard at the top end of World WF is no less than in the other weapons, but there are fewer "rabbits" than in the epees, MF and MS. So achieving top 50% for a "middling fencer" (ie better than a rabbit but not top end) is more difficult.

Threestain
-2nd May 2006, 21:51
In fact I would say they generally need to achieve the top 25% of the L64, ie. placing between 33 and 40.

With the international competitiveness of British WF the state it is at present, then this is very difficult. I would suggest that the standard at the top end of World WF is no less than in the other weapons, but there are fewer "rabbits" than in the epees, MF and MS. So achieving top 50% for a "middling fencer" (ie better than a rabbit but not top end) is more difficult.

I would not agree here at all...

take the weekend's a grades for example (and world championships too, which are quite often easier than some a-grades, apart from the pressure)

Heidenheim (men's epee) had 194 entrants this is not astronomically high for Men's Epee (most grand prixs are this sort of size). The entrants are not 'rabbits'. There are double the number of people on the men's epee FIE rankings as on the women's foil of which 4/7 have got world cup points compared to 2/3 of the women's foil. My point is that it is far harder to get world cup points (poules and then two de fights for example for a 64) in men's epee, than in women's foil at present. This is without comparing standards - assuming that the level is the same.

I'm just flabbergasted that you say that because there are more competitors that its easier in other weapons. Just like football is an easier sport to get to the top in because there are so many other talented people in it...

Foilling Around
-2nd May 2006, 22:21
I would not agree here at all...

take the weekend's a grades for example (and world championships too, which are quite often easier than some a-grades, apart from the pressure)

Heidenheim (men's epee) had 194 entrants this is not astronomically high for Men's Epee (most grand prixs are this sort of size). The entrants are not 'rabbits'. There are double the number of people on the men's epee FIE rankings as on the women's foil of which 4/7 have got world cup points compared to 2/3 of the women's foil. My point is that it is far harder to get world cup points (poules and then two de fights for example for a 64) in men's epee, than in women's foil at present. This is without comparing standards - assuming that the level is the same.

I'm just flabbergasted that you say that because there are more competitors that its easier in other weapons. Just like football is an easier sport to get to the top in because there are so many other talented people in it...


You are right, my analysis is incomplete and therefore flawed. Unfortunately I don't have the time to go into more detail at the moment, but surfice to say that I was not intending to denegrate the accomplishments of any fencers who gain British ranking points from events abroad.

3 Card Trick
-2nd May 2006, 22:36
I'm with Threestain on this one.

It is exceedingly rare in ME to get into a 64 direct from a poule.

It was because of the low entries in some weapons that the 50 per cent rule came in.

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 08:28
Claire finished up below 50%. No points and doesn't count towards EC/WC qualifications. Which shows how harsh the new criteria to get points is.

Winning 4 fights in any A-grade poule is no easy feat. Same is true with Kate G.'s results earlier in the year.

How is the tougher qualification standards going to encourage a fencer to improve if they just acheived effectively their best result ever and have nothing to show for it?

It will encourage them to train harder and get better. Making the top 50% of a WF in Austria (where the locals are not really too challenging) is hardly a harsh criterion.

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 08:43
It will encourage them to train harder and get better. Making the top 50% of a WF in Austria (where the locals are not really too challenging) is hardly a harsh criterion.

In absolute terms you are right, the locals in Austria are not as challenging as say ITA/HUN etc. But that 50% requirement is the same for all A-grades.

In relative terms, recently it is unusual for GBR WF to get a L32 at an A-grade (which effectively the 50% rule requires). Where in previous seasons Clare's result would have been a relatively good result and rewarded with the appropriate amount of domestic ranking points, this season it is worth nothing.

Raising qualification standards will only encourage fencers to train harder and get better if they are realisticly achiveable.

If the current qualificiation standards are applied strictly there will be no WF at the EC or WC this year.

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 08:55
The fact that a result (eg making L32) is unusual does not mean it should be rewarded. Results can, after all, be both mediocre and unusual. (I'm not talking about any specific person here, of course - I don't know the fencer you mnetioned).

It may be that the point of your WC qualification system is to impose an appropriate standrd for those seeking to attend (and realistically hope to be competitive at) the World Championships. I know that is what our (Australian) selection system seeks to do.

I would be amazed if you are suggesting that making the L32 consistently in World Cups (whereever they are held) is not realistically achievable. Any fencer who hopes to be competitive internally should be expecting at least that of themselves after a couple of years on the circuit (irrespective of any external qualification standards imposed).

You know, there are worse things than having no representation in a weapon at the WC. IMHO, failing to challenge mediocrity is one of them.

randomsabreur
-3rd May 2006, 08:56
Actually, relatively large (i.e. complete L64) A-Grades in the really "weak" countries are the hardest. One of the toughest A-Grades I've done was Walkenraedt (BEL).

There were only 4 belgians in the competition, so the entire size of the competition was made up of top 8s (or conceivably more where quotas allow) from a large number of more established fencing nations (80 odd in A-Grade). Much tougher than similar sized French A-Grade, where you have 2 or 3 French per poule, only one of whom is in their A team, and the others you have a vague chance of beating.

In Walkenraedt you had to hope that you got a belgian in your poule. A 999 ranked spaniard wasn't too bad, a 999 ranked Chinese was a nightmare.

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 09:03
I agree that strength can vary between countries - Belgium is an unusual example, because they seem to have very few active fencers. Australia is a little different.

However, in any World Cup, the impact of the locals only really affects the strenngth of the competition at the lower end.

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 09:04
I would be amazed if you are suggesting that making the L32 consistently in World Cups (whereever they are held) is not realistically achievable.

I was really refering to how the qualification standards have been raising each year, even though the performance of fencers haven't really followed. It now includes at least one L16. In WF that hasn't been achieved in 3 years other than last year at Cairo (which got "downgraded" to a L64 anyway).

Raise the bar a little and people try harder, put it out of reach and they go home.

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 09:04
I agree that strength can vary between countries - Belgium is an unusual example, because they seem to have very few active fencers. Australia is a little different.

However, in any World Cup, the impact of the locals only really affects the strenngth of the competition at the lower end.

oops .. i meant Austria, not Australia ... a Freudian slip!

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 09:06
I was really refering to how the qualification standards have been raising each year, even though the performance of fencers haven't really followed.

Raise the bar a little and people try harder, put it out of reach and they go home.

only those who never had what it takes to succeed will go home. the others will try harder.

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 09:11
only those who never had what it takes to succeed will go home. the others will try harder.

Are you suggesting fencers are not trying their hardest anyway?

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 09:16
Any fencer who hopes to be competitive internally should be expecting at least that of themselves after a couple of years on the circuit (irrespective of any external qualification standards imposed).


Wasn't there an Australian WF fencer who trained with the HUN team that was on the world cup circuit for quite a few years but never really consistently made L32's? Are you saying she wasn't trying her hardest/didn't have it in her and shouldn't have fenced for AUS in any World Champs or the Sydney Olympics?

evelyn
-3rd May 2006, 09:26
Wasn't there an Australian WF fencer who trained with the HUN team that was on the world cup circuit for quite a few years but never really consistently made L32's? Are you saying she wasn't trying her hardest/didn't have it in her and shouldn't have fenced for AUS in any World Champs or the Sydney Olympics?

While I am reluctant to comment on the individual, I suspect that she would be the first person to admit that she was disappointed in her results. She is not an example of the issue I am raising.

I AM saying that I don't think it's unreasonable for a country to demand that it's reps at World Champs level are at least competitive (which to my mind means L32s). Btw, currently Aus only requires L64s. Clearly, there are other factors at play in terms of a home country Olympics.

While i am sure all fencers are trying their hardest in competition, I AM also saying that, in my opinion, there are only a very few fencers in both my country and yours who are doing sufficient training to hope to compete at an international level. If they are not achieving results, their time might be better spent improving both the quality and quantity of their training so that they become better, rather than focussing on trying to scrape into a WC team. In my experience, that is the approach that generally proves most effective.

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 12:34
While I am reluctant to comment on the individual, I suspect that she would be the first person to admit that she was disappointed in her results. She is not an example of the issue I am raising.

I was just wondering what your actual personal opinion is in that particular example. Because on one hand you are saying....



I AM saying that I don't think it's unreasonable for a country to demand that it's reps at World Champs level are at least competitive (which to my mind means L32s).

So are you saying that particular AUS WF fencer shouldn't be representing AUS at WC's? Or are you saying it's okay because in that particular fencer's case she is a very driven, hard working and determined person who knows her results are disappointing, and in any case it's okay because AUS only requires L64s?



While i am sure all fencers are trying their hardest in competition, I AM also saying that, in my opinion, there are only a very few fencers in both my country and yours who are doing sufficient training to hope to compete at an international level.
That's very true. However, does that mean your opinion is that the rest (e.g. the AUS WF fencer I refered to) shouldn't be allowed to compete at that level?


If they are not achieving results, their time might be better spent improving both the quality and quantity of their training so that they become better, rather than focussing on trying to scrape into a WC team. In my experience, that is the approach that generally proves most effective.
As you probably know, targets are important in the process of improving one's performance. Setting yourself realistic (realistic to the person personally, not relative to anyone else) targets is a way to improve. What's wrong with having an initial target of just getting on to a WC team?

Hassan
-3rd May 2006, 13:47
...but there are fewer "rabbits" than in the epees, MF and MS...

Sorry to sound flippant and a little unpatriotic, but are not GB fencers sometimes the rabbits in the eyes of other competitors...?

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 13:52
Sorry to sound flippant and a little unpatriotic, but are not GB fencers sometimes the rabbits in the eyes of other competitors...?

If you can't see the rabbit in your poule....you are it! :)

Australian
-3rd May 2006, 14:42
So are you saying that particular AUS WF fencer shouldn't be representing AUS at WC's? Or are you saying it's okay because in that particular fencer's case she is a very driven, hard working and determined person who knows her results are disappointing, and in any case it's okay because AUS only requires L64s?


If any fencer achieves the qualifying standard set by their country, surely you'd expect them to grab it with both hands, irrespective of whether it is a rank/L64/L32/L16. I think it is unfair to compare qualification of one fencer over another with the systems being so different.

I get the impression that evelyn says that if you want to get a good result at the world championships (and justify selection, because thats what it comes down to - results/medals) then regular L32s should be the standard you should be setting yourself, and adjusting your training if you are not getting this.

If there is a problem with the bar being set too high, then that is an International Commitee problem perhaps?

ChubbyHubby
-3rd May 2006, 14:53
I think it is unfair to compare qualification of one fencer over another with the systems being so different.
I wasn't comparing the qualification of one fencer over another. Just trying to use that fencer as a reference point for evelyn to clarify her statements. ie. Does she mean if a fencer is not acheving L32s - the level at which evelyn considers "competitive" they are not good enough to represent their country at WC's.




If there is a problem with the bar being set too high, then that is an International Commitee problem perhaps?
Well, that's the point I am trying to put across. The bar should be set to encourage success not prevent faliure/bad results (and bad PR).

haggis
-3rd May 2006, 14:56
IAs you probably know, targets are important in the process of improving one's performance. Setting yourself realistic (realistic to the person personally, not relative to anyone else) targets is a way to improve. What's wrong with having an initial target of just getting on to a WC team?

Because in many ways it's the wrong kind of target and I would suggest that in the past too many British fencers have focussed on making the team (or, these days, complaining about how difficult that is) rather than examining their training, preparation and performance to work out why they can't achieve the qualifying standard that the International Committee have set. The standard is tough but realistically a fencer that can't get get close to it would only be making up the numbers at World Championships - a scenario that British Fencing's Performance Director seems very determined to get away from.

Regards

Haggis

evelyn
-4th May 2006, 01:09
In response to ChubbyHubby, sorry, but I really am not able to comment about particular individuals in a public forum especially where, as in this case, they are blood relations of mine - I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

In terms of the issue, I couldn't have put it better than Haggis.

We would all agree that it is important to have goals, but what I am saying is that a fencer's goals should be results driven. Gaining selection for a team is a consequence of achieving a particular set of results, and it is also an opportunity to achieve further results (at the relevant competition). But it is not a result in and of itself. The difference may be subtle but it is significant.

My view on this is borne out by personal experience - I spent almost 10 years competing internationally with a focus on qualifying for things (and struggled even to make a L64). When I refocussed my goals on achieving results, I found that my training became much more directed and effective, and I started winning World Cup medals.

Part of the problem of focussing on qualifying for teams is that it diverts your energy and focus from what you need to do to improve enough to be
competitive at the competitions you want to attend. If you can instead focus 95% of your attention on what you need to do to improve your fencing, the results (and the qualification) will follow automatically.