PDA

View Full Version : European Championships - Good Luck!



Boo Boo
-29th June 2006, 09:04
Ok, a little bit early... but the European Championships start on 4th July (next Tuesday) in Turkey.

Very best of luck to everyone going (http://www.britishfencing.com/British_Fencing.asp?PageID=305).

If someone finds a link to a results website, please post it. :)

Boo

Hassan
-29th June 2006, 10:33
http://www.fencing2006izmir.org/

Marcos
-4th July 2006, 09:29
Good luck indeed

is there a page on the website that has a results update?

want to keep track of how the Irish do !

randomsabreur
-4th July 2006, 09:57
http://www.fencingworldwide.com/WAFechten/fechten/frameset.jsp

or thereabouts...

randomsabreur
-4th July 2006, 10:12
Chrystall 2/6 Beat Navarro ESP 15-9 in L64. Fencing Kubissa in L32.
JoJo 3/6 Lost to Kormilitsyna (RUS) 15-6 in L32
Louise 4/6 Beat Sznopek HUN in L32, 15-10 fencing Velikaia in L16
Katie H 1/6 (Finished 40th - Out before DE)

MF Fencing now, Kruse is 5/5 after poules, looks like he will be one of top 2 or 3 if results are reliable...

hokers
-4th July 2006, 10:42
Looks like:

Riseley 1/6
Beevers 5/6
Mansour 4/5
Kruse 5/5

Pretty good opening rounds. Best of luck guys.

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 10:53
Oh exciting :)

Thanks to Hassan and randomsabreur for the websites :)

Good luck to everyone still in :)

Boo

madfencer
-4th July 2006, 10:59
they're certainly doing well! best of luck to everyone :)

randomsabreur
-4th July 2006, 11:13
Looks like Louise is in L8! Result was the wrong way round before, but now seems to be in L8 fencing Budjoso.

Nice one louise :-) !!!!!!!!!

Irratatingly no tableaux, but good coverage otherwise.

Cuppa
-4th July 2006, 11:35
Looks like Louise is in L8! Result was the wrong way round before, but now seems to be in L8 fencing Budjoso.

Nice one louise :-) !!!!!!!!!

Irratatingly no tableaux, but good coverage otherwise.

Lou Lou lost to Budjoso in Vegas in L32, so finger X she will have sussed her out!

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 11:49
Looks like Louise is in L8! Result was the wrong way round before, but now seems to be in L8 fencing Budjoso.

Nice one louise :-) !!!!!!!!!

Irratatingly no tableaux, but good coverage otherwise.

Fantastic! Go Louise! :)

Boo

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 11:57
Looks like Louise is in L8! Result was the wrong way round before, but now seems to be in L8 fencing Budjoso.

Are you sure, seems that Velikaia is fencing Budjoso... :(

doobarz
-4th July 2006, 12:12
Yes, Louise lost in L16 15-11 according to the website.

randomsabreur
-4th July 2006, 12:22
I saw the result both ways when i checked! - first Louise had lost, then she won, now she's lost again. Suspect computer error

madfencer
-4th July 2006, 12:25
oh dear.... :( What about Chrystall? How has she done in the end?

vil
-4th July 2006, 12:30
Richard Kruse was top seed after the pools! Wow! :not_worth

haggis
-4th July 2006, 12:41
IN L32 MF:

Kruse v Barrera (ITA)
Mansour v Bissdorf (GER)
Beevers v Petrov (RUS)

doobarz
-4th July 2006, 13:10
Crystall lost in L32

36 GBR NICOLL Chrystall 12 D
4 GER KUBISSA Stefanie 15 V

7 RUS KORMILITSYNA Svetlana 15 V
26 GBR HUTCHISON Joanna 6 D

Katie Hendra ranked 40th in final clasification.

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 13:12
IN L32 MF:

Kruse v Barrera (ITA)
Mansour v Bissdorf (GER)
Beevers v Petrov (RUS)

They seem to be on great form (great seedings after the poules) - great to see their hard work paying off :).

Good luck to all of them in their L32 fights :party:

Boo

haggis
-4th July 2006, 13:15
Richard wins 15-9!!

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 13:18
Richard wins 15-9!!

What a star! :)

(as an aside, anyone else notice that his photo on the site looks about 5 years old...??? :eek: )

Boo

haggis
-4th July 2006, 13:33
(as an aside, anyone else notice that his photo on the site looks about 5 years old...??? :eek: )

Boo

Do you mean the photo looks about 5 years old or that Richard looks about 5 years old. Either way it's not a recent pic.

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 13:44
Do you mean the photo looks about 5 years old or that Richard looks about 5 years old. Either way it's not a recent pic.

Errr, almost looks like both... ;)

No. His current hairstyle is much more flattering.

Boo

haggis
-4th July 2006, 13:52
After a brief pause to discuss Richard's hairstyle (or lack thereof) back to the results:

James wins 10-9
David loses 15-9.

Richard fences Majecwski (POL) and James gets Koenig (FRA) in the L16.

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 14:07
After a brief pause to discuss Richard's hairstyle (or lack thereof)

Ooops, sorry, but it is much irmpoved now... just the photo doesn't do him any justice.


James wins 10-9
David loses 15-9.

Fantastic for James. Great results at a VERY tough competition... This bodes well for Men's Foil Team, later in the week. With the addition of Cookie, should be a great team :)


Richard fences Majecwski (POL) and James gets Koenig (FRA) in the L16.

Good luck to them both.

Boo

Mark Oakley
-4th July 2006, 14:28
Richard Kruse won 15-9.
James Beevers lost 12-8.

hokers
-4th July 2006, 15:32
Not bloody bad for a nation with such a small fencing "population"!
All the way now Richard!

haggis
-4th July 2006, 15:42
Richard beats Coutant 15-13. Into the semis and guaranteed medal. Woohoo!!

Capt. Fantastic
-4th July 2006, 15:42
Kruse has just made the last 4. Beat frenchman 15-13. So is now in the last four and $1000 richer.

Go Richard

haggis
-4th July 2006, 15:47
Another Frenchman waiting for Richard in the semis - Olympic champion Brice Guyart (who has lost to a variety of Brits this season so plenty of advice from Richard's team-mates if they haven't shouted themselves hoarse already). An all-German affair in the other semi - Bissdorf v Kleibrink.

27ab1c
-4th July 2006, 16:38
An all-German affair in the other semi - Bissdorf v Kleibrink.

Bissdorf having been seeded 43rd after the pools and beaten Mansour in the last 32.

Keith.A.Smith
-4th July 2006, 16:52
Dear All,

From Thailand.

This is really splendid news and I hope Richard can now beat Guyart. Graham Watts caled me from Turkey with the news. A Senior European medal is an excelent result for a truly dedicated fencer. Now lets see what colour the medal is.

This is a splendid result whatever happens and well done to James Beevers also and the WS did excellently. A very good first day for our fencers.

Congratulations to all of them and also to their coaches.

Keith

vil
-4th July 2006, 17:03
He's through! Richard Kruse is in the final! :not_worth :not_worth

Capt. Fantastic
-4th July 2006, 17:03
Kruse just made the FINAL

Keith.A.Smith
-4th July 2006, 17:03
Dear All,

Richard now into the MF Senior European Final according to the competition web site. He has just beaten the Olympic Champion!! A fantastic result and it can get better.

Fingers crossed.

Keith

Hassan
-4th July 2006, 17:04
Richard wins 15-11!

Looks like a strong start to the second period after a small wobble just before the break when Guyart got three hits in a row.

Mark Oakley
-4th July 2006, 17:31
Richard's opponent in the final will be Bissdorf.

Keith.A.Smith
-4th July 2006, 17:38
Dear All,

Whilst we wait for the SE Foil final I just wanted to add my congratulations to David Mansour on his 20th place and James Beevers on his 9th place.

Excellent results today and well done to all.

Fingers crossed now for the next fight.

Keith

JulianRose
-4th July 2006, 17:44
when is the final? can't get on the website at the mo!

vil
-4th July 2006, 17:46
when is the final? can't get on the website at the mo!
On now! Scores currently level at 4 apiece.

JulianRose
-4th July 2006, 17:48
On now! Scores currently level at 4 apiece.

cheers. i am on now. is working fine!

Keith.A.Smith
-4th July 2006, 17:56
Dear All,

Many congratulations to Richard Kruse on winning the silver medal at the Senior European Championships. This is another superb result from Richard. My congratulations also to his coach Ziemek Wojiechowski.

Really well done,

Keith

Old Mongoose
-4th July 2006, 17:56
Hard luck to him. But congrats on the silver *thumbs up*

15-7

vil
-4th July 2006, 17:58
Very respectable results from all the Brits today! Well done one and all.

gbm
-4th July 2006, 18:01
Congratulations to the whole MF team. The training the MF team have been able to do at the Factory has clearly paid off! Fantastic results.
Congratulations also to the BFA for helping to get them there!

Cymru Fach
-4th July 2006, 20:14
Well done guys and gals!! Good luck to all those people who still have to fence!!

CF

Boo Boo
-4th July 2006, 21:35
Wow, fantastic news and very well deserved! :party: :party: :party:

Great results all round too - looking forward to the Men's Foil Team event :)

And good luck to all who fence tomorrow :)

Boo

Gav
-4th July 2006, 22:19
Christ! I nearly missed this.

Well done to Richard Kruse. A brilliant result.

In fact the guys seem to be going great!

Does ANYONE know if this is being filmed?

madfencer
-5th July 2006, 07:31
Hooray! Well done to all the competitors especially Richard....great result! :thumbs_up:

Good luck to everyone that still has to fence in the coming days and lets hope the guys do just as well in the team event! :)

Marcos
-5th July 2006, 07:44
O*N has both Podzniakov and Covaliu in his poule....!

madfencer
-5th July 2006, 07:56
oh dear that's not good for poor O*N :(

Marcos
-5th July 2006, 08:01
he won one, and got apoint off covaliu...bucko won two and came close in all the bouts (including D-3 against Tarantino)

Cuppa
-5th July 2006, 08:32
The fencers piccies on the results site have to be the nastiest!!

Covaliu http://www.fencingworldwide.com/WAFechten/fechten/fechter/detail.jsp?turniernr=2970&saison=5&codenr=10907

Staz Posndiakov (normally handsom man!) http://www.fencingworldwide.com/WAFechten/fechten/fechter/detail.jsp?turniernr=2970&saison=5&codenr=5068

Mr Kruse http://www.fencingworldwide.com/WAFechten/fechten/fechter/detail.jsp?turniernr=2966&saison=5&codenr=16076

haggis
-5th July 2006, 08:41
Chris B out in L64 to Nemirovitch (BLR) 15-13. Was leading 12-10. Pity.

haggis
-5th July 2006, 10:33
Womens Epee

Jo Maynard 73rd and Jo Beadsworth 60th out of 73. Neither qualifies for DE.

hokers
-5th July 2006, 12:00
O*N has both Podzniakov and Covaliu in his poule....!

Ouch!

Though I suppose it's good experience fencing people of that standard.

Rdb811
-5th July 2006, 12:34
Christ! I nearly missed this.

Well done to Richard Kruse. A brilliant result.

In fact the guys seem to be going great!

Does ANYONE know if this is being filmed?

Somebody should tell the Today progrmme on Radio 4 - they've been appealing for any news of British sporting success.

Threestain
-5th July 2006, 13:14
Somebody should tell the Today progrmme on Radio 4 - they've been appealing for any news of British sporting success.

If someone hasn't already, I will e-mail British Fencing to make them e-mail Radio 4 (better coming 2nd hand rather than 53rd hand!)

Baldric
-5th July 2006, 13:21
Somebody should tell the Today progrmme on Radio 4 - they've been appealing for any news of British sporting success.

I have already emailed the today programme, but it wouldn't hurt if more people did it.

addy is today at bbc dot co dot uk

madfencer
-5th July 2006, 14:40
addy is today at bbc dot co dot uk

....so today@bbc.co.uk :tongue:

Baldric
-5th July 2006, 15:04
....so today...@bbc....co .uk :tongue:

Not supposed to put email addies on the forum - it upsets the mods.

Hence my use of the longer form.......!

27ab1c
-5th July 2006, 18:22
Looking at Bissdorf's pool results in the MF, he was just two hits away from being eliminated at that first stage - he lost three pool matches, including 5-2 to Kruse, and his two wins were both 5-4.
I know he's got a huge fencing pedigree behind him, but it still took a big turnaround in form to win it.
A pity David Mansour, having been seeded 11th, had to meet him so early.

husy
-5th July 2006, 19:41
It would be great if fencing channel: http://www.fencingchannel.tv/ (http://www.fencingchannel.tv/) updated its video clips and had more clips for major competition like the European championships.

Red
-5th July 2006, 21:24
"Wahey!" and other such jubilant vocalisations in Richard's general direction!!!!!

Foilling Around
-5th July 2006, 22:24
Not supposed to put email addies on the forum - it upsets the mods.

Hence my use of the longer form.......!

Surely that applies to personal email addresses. Those in the public domain such as the BBC or other media organisations can't be a problem.

Gav
-5th July 2006, 22:47
Does anyone know if the Euro's are being filmed?

Baldric
-5th July 2006, 22:48
Surely that applies to personal email addresses. Those in the public domain such as the BBC or other media organisations can't be a problem.

Fair point. I can't imagine how much spam the BBC must receive - it must take a fairly heavy duty filter to remove all the cr*p! I don't suppose that the little bit added from this forum will make any difference.

Red
-5th July 2006, 22:57
But the point still remains, does anyone out there have any footage?

Leonie H
-6th July 2006, 06:55
Richard Kruse got a brief mention on the 07.30ish sports bulletin of the Today programme this morning.

fencingmaster
-6th July 2006, 08:35
Richard Kruse got a brief mention on the 07.30ish sports bulletin of the Today programme this morning.


Perhaps those e-mails had an effect then!

haggis
-6th July 2006, 08:35
GB MF team (seeded 2) beat Holland 45-23 in L16 and now face Romania in the last 8.

haggis
-6th July 2006, 08:38
And GB WS team (seeded 8) beat Romania 45-41 in L16 and now face top seeds Ukraine in the last 8.

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 09:11
Great start (and what a great seed for the MF Team - due to their great results on Tuesday no-doubt) - best of luck to both teams :)

Boo

madfencer
-6th July 2006, 09:55
Great seeds for the teams! - Good luck to them all :)

Threestain
-6th July 2006, 10:25
Unfortunately the guys lost 45-38 to Romania. Last fight was 15-8! Amazing how tight team matches can be then boom! all hell breaks lose!

And unfortunately in the Ladies Sabre a very tight match was lost 45-43!

Well done to both teams though.

pigeonmeister
-6th July 2006, 11:03
Wow- what a great result for Richards, Men's Foil rules British fencing!!!! Our first Senior European medal since 1936, lets bring home a few more now!

Fair play to Bissdorf- 35 and still a top athlete- I really think his experience must have been the difference, especially considering his awful poule. Richard probably will be a bit dissapointed not to have beaten him. So unlucky for Mansour, after a great seeding.

Even more expectation for Richard to win the nationals now.

How many more Brits want to beat the Olympic champion now? (That's Cookie, James B and Richard just in the last few months!)

How come, though, that 3 of the top 4 in the world (Cassara, Sanzo, Joppich) didn't enter despite obviously being European?

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 11:19
Unfortunately the guys lost 45-38 to Romania. Last fight was 15-8! Amazing how tight team matches can be then boom! all hell breaks lose!

And unfortunately in the Ladies Sabre a very tight match was lost 45-43!

Well done to both teams though.

Oh, sounds very exciting and tense... Congratulations to both teams for the L8s - both so close to at least L4s.

I take it that they don't fence off for minor places at the Europeans?

Boo

haggis
-6th July 2006, 11:54
I take it that they don't fence off for minor places at the Europeans?

Boo

Yes they do.

MF lost to Israel 44-38 in the 5-8 round and now fence Austria for 7th place.

WS lost to Italy 45-31 in the 5-8 round and fence Hungary for 7th.

Regards

Haggis

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 11:59
Thank you Haggis :)

Boo

haggis
-6th July 2006, 13:29
MF team beat Austria 45-43 to finish 7th.

WS team lose 45-40 to Hungary and end up 8th.

Haggis

Red
-6th July 2006, 13:35
Any videos available?

madfencer
-6th July 2006, 14:25
....so today@bbc.co.uk :tongue:

ffs soneone gave me negative rep for this....I wasn't to know...I thought we just weren't allowed to put private email addresses in rather than ones that any old person can easily access anyway!!

Gav
-6th July 2006, 15:42
So let me get this straight:

There is little BBC coverage of a significant silver medal win for Richard Kruse in an important event; yet the Doric Open guys have managed to get their tournament mentioned in their local section of BBC news.

It's a weird world we live in...

----

BTW: if it's puiblicly listed, like the BBC one, then there's nothing stopping you from posting it.

Although it is STILL bad practise.

If people want to negative rep you they can. Hope they left an explanation.

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 21:35
So let me get this straight:

There is little BBC coverage of a significant silver medal win for Richard Kruse in an important event; yet the Doric Open guys have managed to get their tournament mentioned in their local section of BBC news.

It's a weird world we live in...

It's just the effort put into getting the publicity - the BFA either still don't have a publicity officer (I know that they were looking for someone... am sure that someone asked Chubby - no idea why! - to do it some months ago) or that publicity officer is "on the quiet and introverted side".... If the BFA had one, you think that they would be shouting about Richard's success from the roof tops... ;)

It is a fantastic achievement and deserves a big write-up and photos in the broadsheets (and their internet sites) and even on the TV/radio.

The Doric Open guys are probably a lot more world-wise and persistent about getting press coverage than the BFA.

Boo

vil
-6th July 2006, 22:18
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/5156458.stm :thumbs_up

ChubbyHubby
-6th July 2006, 22:59
It's just the effort put into getting the publicity - the BFA either still don't have a publicity officer (I know that they were looking for someone... am sure that someone asked Chubby - no idea why! - to do it

They did. But I have a day job...

It's not something you can do "in your free time" unless you were retired or something. Maybe they need to pay a PR company to do it.

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 23:09
They did. But I have a day job...

It's not something you can do "in your free time" unless you were retired or something. Maybe they need to pay a PR company to do it.

You are also not particularly well qualified for the role... the BFA really need someone who is used to dealing with the media and preferably already has some good/great contacts built up.

Boo
(loves her computer geek, but doesn't think that there is a media mogul hiding deep within him.. ;) ).

ChubbyHubby
-6th July 2006, 23:18
You are also not particularly well qualified for the role...
And if I were they won't be able to afford me :cool:

Boo Boo
-6th July 2006, 23:27
And if I were they won't be able to afford me :cool:

Not as cheap as you look, are you dear...? ;) :grin:

Red
-7th July 2006, 01:09
In a vague attempt to swing this back on track.....
And apologies for being repetitive......

Are there any videos available?

vil
-7th July 2006, 09:08
Tom Cadman has done well in the pools today: 4 victories out of 6 matches, with both losses 5-4 (and one of those was against Kolobkov!). Let's hope he can keep that form going through the DEs!

Not quite so good news for the other Brits in the ME though: 2/6 for both Jon Willis and Nick Perry; and James Taylor on 1/5 with one match still to go. Good luck to all of them anyway!

Too bad we don't have any entries in the WF...

doobarz
-7th July 2006, 11:20
the BFA either still don't have a publicity officer (I know that they were looking for someone

What happened to Graham Morrisson? I know England fencing are still looking....

doobarz
-7th July 2006, 11:31
57 GBR TAYLOR James 4 D
8 FRA SICOT Bastien 15 V

11 AUT MATHE Jörg 15 V
54 GBR WILLIS Jonathan 2 D

47 GEO ARVELADZEH David 4 D
18 GBR CADMAN Thomas 15 V

63 GBR PERRY Nicolas 9 D
2 SUI STEFFEN Benjamin 15 V

Tom faces 15 ITA ROTA Alfredo in L32

Boo Boo
-7th July 2006, 11:52
Tom faces 15 ITA ROTA Alfredo in L32

Good luck to Tom :)

Boo

vil
-7th July 2006, 12:20
Good luck to Tom :)
He's out, losing 15-14 to Rota. :( Rota is currently ranked 21 in the world and has been known to win Grand Prix events in the past, so that's a pretty good effort from Mr Cadman.

Good luck to them all for the team event tomorrow!

Boo Boo
-7th July 2006, 12:42
He's out, losing 15-14 to Rota. :( Rota is currently ranked 21 in the world and has been known to win Grand Prix events in the past, so that's a pretty good effort from Mr Cadman.

Oh, he must be completely gutted... :(. Sounds like a fantastic performance (he only lost his two poule fights 5:4 and his L32 15:14 - and to some fantastic fencers like Koblokov and Rota - sounds like Tom was on fire) - hopefully a good sign for the Worlds :)


Good luck to them all for the team event tomorrow!

Definitely! That will be our last team, wont it? No WE, MS or WF teams... :(

Boo

vil
-7th July 2006, 12:54
Oh, he must be completely gutted...
Just noticed that he was leading 14-10 against Rota. Yep, I'd say you're right. :(

pinkelephant
-7th July 2006, 13:40
Oh, he must be completely gutted... :(. Sounds like a fantastic performance (he only lost his two poule fights 5:4 and his L32 15:14 - and to some fantastic fencers like Koblokov and Rota - sounds like Tom was on fire) - hopefully a good sign for the Worlds :)



Definitely! That will be our last team, wont it? No WE, MS or WF teams... :(

Boo

Unfortunately he hasn't reached the qualifying standard for the Worlds.

Boo Boo
-7th July 2006, 14:37
Unfortunately he hasn't reached the qualifying standard for the Worlds.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boo

vil
-7th July 2006, 15:39
Unfortunately he hasn't reached the qualifying standard for the Worlds.
...despite finishing above all these people, who are ranked in the top 50 in the world:

Dimitry Karuchenko (FIE rank: 3)
Stefano Carrozzo (12)
Jerome Jeannet (14)
Vitali Zakharov (17)
Jean-Michel Lucenay (20)
Marcus Robatsch (36)
Fabian Kauter (38)
Bogdan Nikishin (39)
Tomasz Motyka (41)
Krzysztof Mikolajczak (42)
Peter Tochkov (46)

:confused:

pinkelephant
-7th July 2006, 15:58
He needed a L16 and a L32. One more hit against Rota and he would have had this. And I'm told one of the hits against him in that fight was actually on the floor (and they say refereeing epee is easy).

Piston Broke
-7th July 2006, 15:59
In the words of Richard Littlejohn, you couldn't make it up.

Boo Boo
-7th July 2006, 16:22
He needed a L16 and a L32. One more hit against Rota and he would have had this. And I'm told one of the hits against him in that fight was actually on the floor (and they say refereeing epee is easy).

It's just too painful :( :eek:

Boo

doobarz
-7th July 2006, 16:37
He needed a L16 and a L32.

Don't the epee/ international committee have the power to up grade this result though? If it was particularly taxing....

Boo Boo
-7th July 2006, 16:46
Don't the epee/ international committee have the power to up grade this result though? If it was particularly taxing....

No, they used to be able to Upgrade or Downgrade, now they can only Downgrade results...

However, the Performance Director has absolute and unconditional discretion on who he sends to the Worlds: could send Mary Glenn-Haig if he wanted to... :whistle:

Boo

Cymru Fach
-9th July 2006, 08:48
In the Men's Epee Great Britain were ranked 13th and got a bye through to the last 16 were they met the 4th seeds- Poland and lost 45-31. Unlucky guys. They have there first fight off for places against Estonia at the moment!

CF

tigger
-9th July 2006, 09:13
I was at the Europeans as Katie's coach - Kruse was awesome - creative, controlled, aggressive and confident. He had two very tough fights in the L8 which took a lot out of him. For me he was the better fencer in the final, but the German fella had a smoother ride earlier on and had more in the tank.

Good look to the boys fencing today

Foilling Around
-9th July 2006, 10:04
No, they used to be able to Upgrade or Downgrade, now they can only Downgrade results...

However, the Performance Director has absolute and unconditional discretion on who he sends to the Worlds: could send Mary Glenn-Haig if he wanted to... :whistle:

Boo

This is where we fencers get into a real pickle about selection, and we seem to want it both ways.

On the one hand we don't want selector to have free reign because we want to know what we need to do to get selected. It takes away the "jobs for the boys" and cronyism (sp) accusations. Objectivity and clarity are important.

On the other hand when someone we think has been "unlucky" doesn't make the standard, we want the selectors to make a subjective decision and pick them.

Of course for the objective qualification to be widely accepted the criteria themselves need to widely accepted. I think that, at least amongst the forum fencers who are involved in the international scene, there is a feeling that the criteria are not robust or flexible enough to take account of all eventualities. This therefore leads to what are perceived as injustices.

As a dyed in the wool foilist, I wouldn't know Tom Cadman if I tripped over him, but look at it from an outsiders point of view (or UK sport if you prefer)

"So this guy finished 24th in the European Championships and hasn't got a finish in the Last 16 of any of the major international events - and you want an exception to be made to your own rules for our money pay for him to go to the World Championships"

I'm not for a second denying that Tom probably fenced out of his skin to get to within 1 hit of the L16 and who knows what could have happened after that. It looks different in black and white which is how Graham Watts has to present it to our paymasters.

Think of it from Graham's point of view he would be taking a gamble.
"So Mr Watts, you made an exception to your rules in order to take this fencer to the World Championship. You used our money and he went out in the L128/L64. How do you justify that?

This is part of the price we as a sport pay for £2.7 million over the next 3 years.

Personally I really hope he does go to the Worlds. Even if people don't do well, it is fantastic experience they can pass on to others and can use when and if they go into coaching. We live however in a world of accountability.

Baldric
-9th July 2006, 10:13
This is where we fencers get into a real pickle about selection, and we seem to want it both ways.

On the one hand we don't want selector to have free reign because we want to know what we need to do to get selected. It takes away the "jobs for the boys" and cronyism (sp) accusations. Objectivity and clarity are important.

On the other hand when someone we think has been "unlucky" doesn't make the standard, we want the selectors to make a subjective decision and pick them.

Of course for the objective qualification to be widely accepted the criteria themselves need to widely accepted. I think that, at least amongst the forum fencers who are involved in the international scene, there is a feeling that the criteria are not robust or flexible enough to take account of all eventualities. This therefore leads to what are perceived as injustices.

As a dyed in the wool foilist, I wouldn't know Tom Cadman if I tripped over him, but look at it from an outsiders point of view (or UK sport if you prefer)

"So this guy finished 24th in the European Championships and hasn't got a finish in the Last 16 of any of the major international events - and you want an exception to be made to your own rules for our money pay for him to go to the World Championships"

I'm not for a second denying that Tom probably fenced out of his skin to get to within 1 hit of the L16 and who knows what could have happened after that. It looks different in black and white which is how Graham Watts has to present it to our paymasters.

Think of it from Graham's point of view he would be taking a gamble.
"So Mr Watts, you made an exception to your rules in order to take this fencer to the World Championship. You used our money and he went out in the L128/L64. How do you justify that?

This is part of the price we as a sport pay for £2.7 million over the next 3 years.

Personally I really hope he does go to the Worlds. Even if people don't do well, it is fantastic experience they can pass on to others and can use when and if they go into coaching. We live however in a world of accountability.

Hear Hear!

Very neatly summed up FA.

hokers
-9th July 2006, 11:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/5156458.stm

Finally some coverage from the BBC - no pictures though.

Boo Boo
-9th July 2006, 12:06
No, personally I think it reinforces that the qualification criteria for the Worlds are too high.

Tom is a "world class" fencer who got a "world class" result at the Europeans (which has to be one of the toughest fencing competitions in the world). The BFA probably disagree with me on that: in their minds "world class" is either a medal or maybe up to a L16.

Allowing "world class" fencers, like Tom, to fence at the World Championships would not - in a an ideal world - be down to discretion. Since discretion in not accountable.

I think that you will find - according to how the selection rules are written - that we don't live in a (fencing) world of accountability or transparency...

Boo
(probably spent too much time eating BBQ and drinking wining with cynical fencing people last night... :rolleyes: )

This is where we fencers get into a real pickle about selection, and we seem to want it both ways.

On the one hand we don't want selector to have free reign because we want to know what we need to do to get selected. It takes away the "jobs for the boys" and cronyism (sp) accusations. Objectivity and clarity are important.

On the other hand when someone we think has been "unlucky" doesn't make the standard, we want the selectors to make a subjective decision and pick them.

Of course for the objective qualification to be widely accepted the criteria themselves need to widely accepted. I think that, at least amongst the forum fencers who are involved in the international scene, there is a feeling that the criteria are not robust or flexible enough to take account of all eventualities. This therefore leads to what are perceived as injustices.

As a dyed in the wool foilist, I wouldn't know Tom Cadman if I tripped over him, but look at it from an outsiders point of view (or UK sport if you prefer)

"So this guy finished 24th in the European Championships and hasn't got a finish in the Last 16 of any of the major international events - and you want an exception to be made to your own rules for our money pay for him to go to the World Championships"

I'm not for a second denying that Tom probably fenced out of his skin to get to within 1 hit of the L16 and who knows what could have happened after that. It looks different in black and white which is how Graham Watts has to present it to our paymasters.

Think of it from Graham's point of view he would be taking a gamble.
"So Mr Watts, you made an exception to your rules in order to take this fencer to the World Championship. You used our money and he went out in the L128/L64. How do you justify that?

This is part of the price we as a sport pay for £2.7 million over the next 3 years.

Personally I really hope he does go to the Worlds. Even if people don't do well, it is fantastic experience they can pass on to others and can use when and if they go into coaching. We live however in a world of accountability.

thedoc
-9th July 2006, 15:16
i have to disagree.

world class is the most overused phrase in sport. tom is a very good fencer, but he is not world class. britain has at the most two (richard, and probably louise) world class fencers.

the major selection criteria are clear. they are published before the start of the season and you will be selected if you meet them. if you do not meet the criteria, in my opinion, you don't have the right to complain, no matter how close you get.

the major funding associations in british sport are trying to change a mind set in this country. it is strongly ingrained that ok is good enough, but sport at the top level is an extremely demanding place to be and they have every right to demand that anyone who wants funding has to be worth it.

they are not treating fencing differently from any other sport as far as i can see.

if you want to see murky selection criteria, read golubitsky's autobiography.

Spider5
-9th July 2006, 15:28
......snip..........

Personally I really hope he does go to the Worlds. Even if people don't do well, it is fantastic experience they can pass on to others and can use when and if they go into coaching. We live however in a world of accountability.

Speaking as a non international and somewhat mediocre UK fencer this is the part that seems most apposite to me. I'm convinced that virtually all fencers irrespective of their current standard will only get better by fencing currently better international opponents. The more British fencers that go to internationals the more they are likely to absorb different styles, techniques and tactics and the more likely they are to expose those techniques to the rest of the UK fencers and so on. Easy to say but it costs money doesn't it?

I would argue that fencing is a sport where success can be characterised (at least in part) by percolation theory. In other words small incremental changes in one parameter (say attendance at internationals) may not yield any obvious results until a critical pathway of experience is obtained and then results suddenly start coming in. This effect is obvious when you look at DE's. Losing 15-0 or 15-14 in the L32 yields the same result but there is a world of difference in the performance. The critical pathway comes when losing 15-14 becomes winning 15-14. Obviously this is a simplification and the influencing parameters are multiple (talent, physical fitness, number and quality of coaching sessions etc).

Can this type of threshold system be characterised objectively for fencers on the periphery of selection? Possibly. You would probably have to dig into individual fight performances. Not only numbers of close losses but how the fights progressed (poules and DE's). For example, losing 15-14 after a 14-3 fightback could be viewed positively (11 hits to opponents 1 whilst on fight point) or negatively (why did such a large difference accumulate in the first place?). This may be done already in a subjective sense but I can't help wondering if a more objective process couldn't be developed. I dunno, something non-linear - neural nets or fuzzy logic maybe?

Finally any objective system assumes that all fencers are presided equally. Given that presidents are human, and some variations occur in interpretation of priority, what component of international success can be ascribed to the familiarity of a fencers face to the refs?!

gbm
-9th July 2006, 15:37
I don't think competing = training. Experience maybe, but not training.
Just as an example, say you go to an A-grade. have a poule of 7. You win 1 of your fights 5-3, lose one 5-2 and lose the rest 5-0 or 5-1, and go home.
This isn't really training.
You could say that you might go through and win a few DE's... but not without proper training! Even then, that's not a lot of fencing really...

'World Class' training is (I assume, having never really done it!) where you are able to spend tens of hours a week training under a very good coach, and to just generally practice (what sort of things elite fencers do to train I don't know, but I assume it involves footwork, paired practices, taking lessons, bouting, as well as general fitness work).
This is, I understand, what the MF team have been able to do at The Factory?

Right? Horribly wrong?

PS Presumably the Europeans were not the only competitions where Tom Cadman could have qualified for the Worlds.

Spider5
-9th July 2006, 19:58
I don't think competing = training. Experience maybe, but not training.
Just as an example, say you go to an A-grade. have a poule of 7. You win 1 of your fights 5-3, lose one 5-2 and lose the rest 5-0 or 5-1, and go home.
This isn't really training.
You could say that you might go through and win a few DE's... but not without proper training! Even then, that's not a lot of fencing really...

'World Class' training is (I assume, having never really done it!) where you are able to spend tens of hours a week training under a very good coach, and to just generally practice (what sort of things elite fencers do to train I don't know, but I assume it involves footwork, paired practices, taking lessons, bouting, as well as general fitness work).
This is, I understand, what the MF team have been able to do at The Factory?

Right? Horribly wrong?

PS Presumably the Europeans were not the only competitions where Tom Cadman could have qualified for the Worlds.

I didn't say that competing = training either. However, experience of real hardcore top level international competitions provides exposure to the best fencers at their best and hopefully the best international refs that can't be got anywhere else.

thedoc makes the point that top level sport is a demanding place to be so you have to be good to get the funding. Quite so and if we had a competitive UK fencing league with a significant number of "world class" fencers (by his/her criteria) that would work and be transparent. But we don't appear to have that. So how do we get more British fencers to that "world class" level to make the UK league more internationally competitive? Would exposure to more top level competition help at all or is it mainly due to a lack of experienced international coaches and money?

Anyway, I'll shutup on this topic seeing as there are far better qualified people than me around who can provide their thoughts.

ChubbyHubby
-9th July 2006, 21:23
the major selection criteria are clear. they are published before the start of the season and you will be selected if you meet them. if you do not meet the criteria, in my opinion, you don't have the right to complain, no matter how close you get.


Rather than placing so much emphsis on qualification standards, statistics for UKSport and PR spin to aid that. IMHO we should have a full time Performance Director that can devote his/her time 100% towards improving the infrastructure and training opportunities, have clear funding policies (e.g. can anyone tell me how they decide who gets funding, what criteria do they use etc).

i.e. Positive actions to improve performance as opposed to what is IMHO a very negative way of doing things at the moment.

Yes, we now have "The Factory" facility, there has been more squad trainig sessions. It's a start but a full time person in the Performance director role with possibly more experience in sport management has got to be better.

Indeed can anyone tell me who the Performance Director is accountable to? How is his performance measured. What are his targets? More importantly what if he fails to meet it?

There is UKSport money for this role as a full time post, indeed UKSport documents suggests that this is what should be done. Has this role been advertised now that we have the UKSport funds?

This post is nothing personal against GW who has done a lot for BF but merely a statement to provoke debate to the questions "Would a full time Performance Director leading up to 2012 provide better results?" and btw that the "right" person may well be GW if he is indeed planning to do this full time.

vil
-9th July 2006, 22:07
Speaking as a non international and somewhat mediocre UK fencer this is the part that seems most apposite to me. I'm convinced that virtually all fencers irrespective of their current standard will only get better by fencing currently better international opponents. The more British fencers that go to internationals the more they are likely to absorb different styles, techniques and tactics and the more likely they are to expose those techniques to the rest of the UK fencers and so on. Easy to say but it costs money doesn't it?
This has been discussed here before. If I recall correctly from the previous discussion, A-grades (World Cup/Grand Prix events) are where you get experience whereas European/World Championships are regarded as the ultimate goal: what you get the experience for. It's important to differentiate between the two.

It's probably also worth pointing out that some of the Grand Prix events can actually be tougher than the European Championships because they attract top fencers from other zones as well.

pinkelephant
-9th July 2006, 22:21
Boo
(probably spent too much time eating BBQ and drinking wining with cynical fencing people last night... :rolleyes: )

Cynical? Surely not.:whistle: :duff1: :rockon:

(Only just got home!)

pinkelephant
-9th July 2006, 22:43
Let's look on the bright side. Thanks largely to Richard, but with contributions from others as well including teams (where we sent such a rare beast) GBR 9th out of 32 in the Nations Cup and also 9th in the medals table - and how long is it since we've been on THAT?

Marcos
-10th July 2006, 08:27
i have to disagree.

world class is the most overused phrase in sport. tom is a very good fencer, but he is not world class. britain has at the most two (richard, and probably louise) world class fencers..

Jojo, Alex and Crystall might clear their throats at that comment, but until one the these top fencers posts on here regarding selection criteria it's all supposition.

Look at international fencers from the past - Harps, Zahir, etc - and ask whether they would have had more success under the current system, or whether your current crop would have done better under the old regime. Also look at fencers who have faded away - say Beydoun, Lancaster to pick two at random (I don't know why they stopped fencing) - and analyse why they stopped.

I was ranked top of my countries domestic ranking list for over two years but didn't make the selection criteria - I recognise I wasn't good enough - that one of my students did qualify through hard work and talent to go to the Europeans makes his achievement stronger and deserved. As the doc says, the criteria are published and you work towards them.


to me the UK criteria seems tough...but...

thedoc
-10th July 2006, 10:22
i was talking about at the senior level, and they are not there yet. world class, for me, means repeated top level success over a period of time.

as a question, have we ever sent anyone to at worlds who didn't meet a qualifying mark who has gone on to 'overperform'? i can't really think of anyone in the last few years.

anyway, i think qualifying marks are a bit of a red herring. the big improvements in british fencing are to be made in structure, coaching and training. the people who are capable of qualifying marks will then follow, as i don't think we lack the talent.

i think some of those names from the past dropped out due to a lack of support structure that was needed to make the push to senior level. the really big misses are paul walsh and sam johnson, who should both still be around. however, these days the bfa has made some big strides and keith should be congratulated on that.

pigeonmeister
-10th July 2006, 11:41
the really big misses are paul walsh and sam johnson, who should both still be around.

And Ben Montague, he was immence and won medals at Junior European champs.

Boo Boo
-10th July 2006, 12:06
Jojo, Alex and Crystall might clear their throats at that comment.

Agreed, and a few others...

Maybe some have not YET started regularly making L8s at senior A-grades/Championships, BUT - with the right support and environment - they (and others) must be firmly on their way? JoJo is making regular L16s at very tough Senior A-grades and Alex was cadet world champion (wow, enough said! :notworthy: )

Myabe I am odd that I think of "world class" as relating to potential/talent (in addition to proven track record)?

Yes, having talent/potential alone is not enough to achieving consistent world class results at senior level, but I think that we should get 200% behind those that do have that talent/potential and give them EVERY support and encouragement to give them the best possible shot at getting there.

A big thing about fencing is self-belief and self-confidence. If you build someone up then they can sometimes achieve well beyond their abilities. If, on the other hand, you regularly tear them apart (as seems to be the British way!) ...

Boo

thedoc
-10th July 2006, 13:24
i, and infinitely more importantly, uk sport call 'world class' as amongst the best in the world and therefore a potential medallist at the senior level. in which case, my original assessment is fair enough.

i absolutely have not knocked any of their achievements so far, but am just pointing out that there is still a lot of work to be done and probably is better served concentrating on the structure and content of training rather than qualification standards.

all sports are littered with people who get top results at junior level but never make the step up to senior level, that's what we shouldn't allow to happen as far as is possible.

(ben montague was a world cadet bronze medallist in 1997, iirc. that would put him in the prime of his fencing career now if he was still going. that's a shame.)

Marcos
-11th July 2006, 14:23
No, personally I think it reinforces that the qualification criteria for the Worlds are too high.

yourself and Chubby have made some excellent points on selection in the past, so, out of curiosity, what do you think the criteria should be?

and would there be discretion or not?

:)

vil
-11th July 2006, 15:57
Interestingly, under the current system you could conceivably fail to qualify for the worlds despite having enough FIE points to be ranked 36th in the world; yet you could meet the qualification criteria and be ranked around 135 in the world.

Hmm.

Why not just base the qualification criteria on FIE ranking?

haggis
-11th July 2006, 16:29
Why not just base the qualification criteria on FIE ranking?

Because it's possible to collect a lot of World Cup points at "the Timbuktu Open" (as weaker World Cup events were sympathetically described by BF Performance Director last year). 32 WC points for winning Timbuktu Open (or the Coupe Buenos Aires at WF with 12 entries including 8 Argentinians), 32 points for winning Leipzig (100 entries including most of the best fencers in the world). For World ranking purposes the results are treated the same. Make selection based purely on the inflexible FIE ranking system and you'll get fencers who can afford it farming WC points from the weaker events held in the more obscure corners of the world.

Regards

Haggis

vil
-11th July 2006, 17:03
Because it's possible to collect a lot of World Cup points at "the Timbuktu Open" (as weaker World Cup events were sympathetically described by BF Performance Director last year). 32 WC points for winning Timbuktu Open (or the Coupe Buenos Aires at WF with 12 entries including 8 Argentinians), 32 points for winning Leipzig (100 entries including most of the best fencers in the world). For World ranking purposes the results are treated the same. Make selection based purely on the inflexible FIE ranking system and you'll get fencers who can afford it farming WC points from the weaker events held in the more obscure corners of the world.

Regards

Haggis
If someone's willing to invest the time, money and effort into farming WC points from the weaker events, I say good luck to 'em! That's exactly the kind of commitment that UK fencing needs! They'd have to be in the UK top 20 to be eligible for even the "Timbuktu Open", so they'd already have to have proved themself to some extent.

At least using the FIE rankings would reward people who consistently get good results over people who get one extraordinary result then never again achieve anything like it.

ChubbyHubby
-11th July 2006, 17:06
yourself and Chubby have made some excellent points on selection in the past, so, out of curiosity, what do you think the criteria should be?

and would there be discretion or not?

:)

I think there should be:

* A sensible criteria
* No discretion

But what is sensible? How can we have a qual. standard that will actually help improve the results?

I've come to the conclusion that there should be a "up or out" policy.

If you have never been to a WC before the criteria could be 2 x L64.

Therefore if you are ranked in the top 5 (or however many each country is allowed to send) and have a 2xL64 you get to go.

BUT once you have been to the WC once your qualification criteria for the following year becomes 1xL64 1x32, and so on etc etc until it is 1xL16 1xL32 (or whatever "world class" is defined as it is now).

So selection is the top 5 fencers who has qualified, no exceptions, no discretion (injured? tough).

If you are a fully funded fencers you should be set targets, miss it 2 years in a row and you lose the funding (this gives a little safety margin for injuries, but if you are injured over a period of 2 years you are probably knackered anyway).

"Achivable Targets with Tangible Rewards"

Up or Out.

Cymru Fach
-11th July 2006, 17:49
Like the thinking behind it, would certainly encourage fencers as their place on the squad would be threatened.

CF

pinkelephant
-11th July 2006, 19:01
As a dyed in the wool foilist, I wouldn't know Tom Cadman if I tripped over him, but look at it from an outsiders point of view (or UK sport if you prefer)



Perhaps you should, as he's standing for the board. Would you like me to introduce you?

ChubbyHubby
-11th July 2006, 19:13
Perhaps you should, as he's standing for the board. Would you like me to introduce you?

http://www.britishfencing.com/Search.asp?submitted=1&cboSearchScope=WholeSite&txtSearch=cadman

Baldric
-11th July 2006, 19:45
I've come to the conclusion that there should be a "up or out" policy.

If you have never been to a WC before the criteria could be 2 x L64.

Therefore if you are ranked in the top 5 (or however many each country is allowed to send) and have a 2xL64 you get to go.

BUT once you have been to the WC once your qualification criteria for the following year becomes 1xL64 1x32, and so on etc etc until it is 1xL16 1xL32 (or whatever "world class" is defined as it is now).


This could put you in a bizarre position, where an experienced fencer who has 2 x L32 doesn't get selected, but a newer face with 2 x L64 does get selected. Doesn't seem very sensible to me.

ChubbyHubby
-11th July 2006, 20:12
This could put you in a bizarre position, where an experienced fencer who has 2 x L32 doesn't get selected, but a newer face with 2 x L64 does get selected. Doesn't seem very sensible to me.

Yes, Up or Out. It will give the newer face the chance to move "up".

If the objective is to be "World Class" then if a fencer's qual. critieria is 1xL16 and 1xL32 but he/she gets 2xL32. He/she did not qualify.

If 2xL32 is determined to be the "good enough" standard, then we simply do not move the criteria any higher than 2xL32.

If the newer face don't make 1xL32 1xL64 the following year, then he/she is out too (at least until the required standard is reached).

The idea is continual improvement. With the current "one size fits all" qual. criteria as it is the 2xL32 person won't be able to go anyway.

Red
-11th July 2006, 20:18
But then you have all the problems with subjectivity, although it seems a slightly more sensible solution than the current one.

Edited to add - although it could be argued that the Opens, Satellites, A-Grades and World Cups can provide you with a means to achieve the continual improvement.
I'm obviously not an international fencer, so I might have missed the point entirely.

Baldric
-11th July 2006, 21:22
Yes, Up or Out. It will give the newer face the chance to move "up".

If the objective is to be "World Class" then if a fencer's qual. critieria is 1xL16 and 1xL32 but he/she gets 2xL32. He/she did not qualify.

If 2xL32 is determined to be the "good enough" standard, then we simply do not move the criteria any higher than 2xL32.



I wasn't suggesting that 2 x L32 should be the standard, just that it seemed strange to tell one fencer that 2 x L64 was enough, and at the same time tell another that 2 x L32 wasn't.

The objective, as I understand it, is not to be "World Class" but to win medals at the Worlds, Europeans and Olympics. In don't see why the up-and-coming fencer can't gain experience at A grades, leaving only the current highest achievers to go for the biggest 3 comps.

ChubbyHubby
-11th July 2006, 22:10
I wasn't suggesting that 2 x L32 should be the standard, just that it seemed strange to tell one fencer that 2 x L64 was enough, and at the same time tell another that 2 x L32 wasn't.

The objective, as I understand it, is not to be "World Class" but to win medals at the Worlds, Europeans and Olympics. In don't see why the up-and-coming fencer can't gain experience at A grades, leaving only the current highest achievers to go for the biggest 3 comps.

Marcos' question was what should the criteria be and whether or not discretion should be allowed. So I wasn't really debating whether we should be sending full teams etc or not... :rolleyes:

The current system is simply a bad piece of communication. It's objective is to ensure only people with a chance goes to the major champs. Which one might say is fair enough. It's just very badly worded and communicated.

It should just say what it means. ie. "if IC don't think you are good enough you don't get to go".

It isn't really a case of "make the criteria and you get to go otherwise you don't". Because that isn't the case either as discretion may be applied.

So why not go to the other exterme then perhaps selection should be completely by discretion. Since the current criteria geared towards that anyway why not just make it official?

vil
-11th July 2006, 23:32
So why not go to the other exterme then perhaps selection should be completely by discretion. Since the current criteria geared towards that anyway why not just make it official?
The Western Australian Fencing Association has a selection policy which says exactly that (http://www.wafafencing.org.au/node/68), albeit in a slightly more verbose way. Interesting for purposes of comparison, perhaps?

Australian
-12th July 2006, 08:12
The Western Australian Fencing Association has a selection policy which says exactly that (http://www.wafafencing.org.au/node/68), albeit in a slightly more verbose way. Interesting for purposes of comparison, perhaps?



hahahahahahahahahahahaha

sorry....


you should see the problems it creates.

No non-australians will get this though

Marcos
-12th July 2006, 08:44
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

sorry....


you should see the problems it creates.

No non-australians will get this though

...a lot of what it says makes sense in isolation but you can see it unravelling in the real world

"Selection of teams is probably the most contentious area of any sport organisation’s activities"

but the criteria in the document, a lot of which I think is right - technique, desire to win - are asking for trouble.

that the selection criteia for the selectors takes up more space than criteria for selecting fencers possibly sends out the wrong message

vil
-12th July 2006, 08:45
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

sorry....


you should see the problems it creates.

No non-australians will get this though
I was deliberately not commenting on what I thought of it... :grin:

haggis
-12th July 2006, 09:00
The Western Australian Fencing Association has a selection policy which says exactly that (http://www.wafafencing.org.au/node/68), albeit in a slightly more verbose way. Interesting for purposes of comparison, perhaps?

Oh my God!!!:eek:

Surely they're having a laugh. I can just imagine the look on the faces of fencers in any teams I've selected if I sent them this and said it was the new selection policy (an opportunity missed:rolleyes: )

Regards

Haggis

ChubbyHubby
-12th July 2006, 09:41
Oh my God!!!:eek:

Surely they're having a laugh. I can just imagine the look on the faces of fencers in any teams I've selected if I sent them this and said it was the new selection policy (an opportunity missed:rolleyes: )

Regards

Haggis

I think its right that they have someone qualified to make the final decision. However, they are trying to make it objective when it isn't possible using subjective criteria.

They should've just stopped at who they will use to do the selection and just say "at their absolute discretion", if they think you are good enough you go.

Yes, there is an element of "if your face fits" but is that any different to how some elements of how funding/selection works at the moment?

Red
-12th July 2006, 10:03
Surely the bit on there about the age of the fencer is a bit of a joke - just looking at our WS rankings, we have 5 cadets and seven juniors in the top twenty - two of those juniors (who also have a Senior World Championships under their belts) in the top three. If they were Western Australian, surely they wouldn't have gone?

Insipiens
-12th July 2006, 10:32
Isn't absolute discretion exactly what the England cricket selectors and England football manager have?

vil
-12th July 2006, 10:36
Isn't absolute discretion exactly what the England cricket selectors and England football manager have?
Slightly different situation where it's a team sport though, no? You need to be able to select not just the best players, but the ones which will work best together. That's always going to be a bit more subjective than selecting for an individual sport.

Marcos
-12th July 2006, 11:28
Back to the Up or Out policy, it's a good idea and I can see the benefits (continuous improvement, giving new talent time to improve, etc) but one potential problem is what happenes to the fencers who are kicked-out.

You could have a fencer, high in the domestic ranking, that has a few years of A grades behind them...they get kicked out the scheme as they have hit their ceiling.

this fencer probably enjoys going away to comps and meeting his fellow internationals, but getting kicked off the scheme pees him off to an extent he stops fencing seriously.

would this not be a loss to the sport..?

(ps is this becoming a potential thread split)

Boo Boo
-12th July 2006, 11:37
You could have a fencer, high in the domestic ranking, that has a few years of A grades behind them...they get kicked out the scheme as they have hit their ceiling.

this fencer probably enjoys going away to comps and meeting his fellow internationals, but getting kicked off the scheme pees him off to an extent he stops fencing seriously.

would this not be a loss to the sport..?

(ps is this becoming a potential thread split)

Why would it matter? The goal is winning medals not creating happy fencers.

I think this happens quite a lot anyway...

Boo

Red
-12th July 2006, 11:51
Fencer A has been getting L8 at the Worlds for four seasons in a row. He is the best we have by a long shot, but can never quite seem to get to a medal position.
What happens to him in the 'Up and Out' policy? To an outside observer he's clearly not improving.

Boo Boo
-12th July 2006, 11:58
Slightly different situation where it's a team sport though, no? You need to be able to select not just the best players, but the ones which will work best together. That's always going to be a bit more subjective than selecting for an individual sport.

Would love to see the England football manager select a team of 6 for the next World Cup... 'cos the others weren't good enough and didn't reach the selection criteria... :whistle:

Hhhmmmmm.

Boo

nickw
-12th July 2006, 14:41
Surely there really be a distinction drawn between team qualification, and individual qualification. I believe this happens in other successful fencing countries (i think that in 2005, when kolobkov won the world championship, having qualified for for the individuals, he wasn't even in the russian team for the team event a few days later as the coach had decided he'd been lazy when fencing in team matches earlier in the season!) As such, the current criteria apply to qualifying as an individual, but teams can go for the team event composed of whoever the selectors feel should go. In this way, selectors can act as Sven only in the field of team fencing, while indiviual events are reliant entirely on qualification through the stated criteria.

ChubbyHubby
-12th July 2006, 14:50
You could have a fencer, high in the domestic ranking, that has a few years of A grades behind them...they get kicked out the scheme as they have hit their ceiling.

this fencer probably enjoys going away to comps and meeting his fellow internationals, but getting kicked off the scheme pees him off to an extent he stops fencing seriously.



No different to current situation where a fencer reaches their ceiling, think that the current qual. standard is too high and think what's the point and quit? There is probably more cases of that now than if there was a higher realistic goal to aim for.

As for a fencer going away to enjoy the trip, I think that is regarded as "fencing tourism" by the Performance Director. If you have hit your peak and that still isn't winning medals perhaps it should be someone else's chance to try?

ChubbyHubby
-12th July 2006, 14:55
Fencer A has been getting L8 at the Worlds for four seasons in a row. He is the best we have by a long shot, but can never quite seem to get to a medal position.
What happens to him in the 'Up and Out' policy? To an outside observer he's clearly not improving.

That's why I suggested that the qualification standard should only keep raising until a certain point. (2xL16 or whatever).

If the fencer is a full funded fencer that point I guess the selectors will have to decide is L8 "good enough" as a target.

Boo Boo
-12th July 2006, 14:59
Indeed - not all great individual fencers make good team fencers and sometimes people outshine their individual performances when they work within a team...

Infact some elite fencers don't like fencing in team events (they don't see the benefit to themselves for doing it) and have been known to refuse to fence in the team event (and only fence in the individual).

Boo


Surely there really be a distinction drawn between team qualification, and individual qualification. I believe this happens in other successful fencing countries (i think that in 2005, when kolobkov won the world championship, having qualified for for the individuals, he wasn't even in the russian team for the team event a few days later as the coach had decided he'd been lazy when fencing in team matches earlier in the season!) As such, the current criteria apply to qualifying as an individual, but teams can go for the team event composed of whoever the selectors feel should go. In this way, selectors can act as Sven only in the field of team fencing, while indiviual events are reliant entirely on qualification through the stated criteria.

Threestain
-12th July 2006, 17:15
(i think that in 2005, when kolobkov won the world championship, having qualified for for the individuals, he wasn't even in the russian team for the team event a few days later as the coach had decided he'd been lazy when fencing in team matches earlier in the season!)

He actually refused to train with the team, preferring instead to train with just him and his coach. Hence the snubber got snubbed. However, it worked - he won after all!

Glue Boy
-13th July 2006, 12:59
Discretionary selection for team events already happens in British Fencing. CF Jess Lacheta selection for the Europeans because of previous WS team results, but she was not able to fence in individual as she hadn't met the qualification criteria and others had.

If this sounds too intelligent for Glueboy, that's because it's tigger on his PC!

Boo Boo
-13th July 2006, 13:19
Discretionary selection for team events already happens in British Fencing. CF Jess Lacheta selection for the Europeans because of previous WS team results, but she was not able to fence in individual as she hadn't met the qualification criteria and others had.

That is fine. To be honest I wish (and have always wished!) that sort of approach would be taken to other weapons: for example if a full team or 3/4 do not qualify for MS/WF/WE/ME, then a full team are STILL taken. You can still apply that "individuals who haven't qualified" don't fence int he individuals - they just fence in the team event... (I believe that Cookie went to the Europeans for the team event - he hadn't qualified as an individual, but they obviously thought that he would be useful asset to have for the team... good move I think :) ).

The thing that always saddens me about British Fencing is that teams are neglected: the selectors only put a team in to major championships IF the right number of individuals have qualified. A solid, well-developed, established team environment for each weapon can only serve to provide a nurturing atmosphere for talented young individuals breaking into the senior international circuit.


If this sounds too intelligent for Glueboy, that's because it's tigger on his PC!

:eek:

Anarch
-14th July 2006, 07:47
The thing that always saddens me about British Fencing is that teams are neglected: the selectors only put a team in to major championships IF the right number of individuals have qualified. A solid, well-developed, established team environment for each weapon can only serve to provide a nurturing atmosphere for talented young individuals breaking into the senior international circuit.


I think this lack of support for teams is partially due to the lack of team competitions. Compare the number of opens for individuals with open team events nationally. There isn't the opportunity to learn to fence as part of a team, nor is there the recognition through a ranking system of the achievments of teams and individuals within teams. Because we, as British fencers, can't progress through a team sport we don't think to support the British team.

Marcos
-14th July 2006, 10:04
I think this lack of support for teams is partially due to the lack of team competitions. Compare the number of opens for individuals with open team events nationally. There isn't the opportunity to learn to fence as part of a team, nor is there the recognition through a ranking system of the achievments of teams and individuals within teams. Because we, as British fencers, can't progress through a team sport we don't think to support the British team.

I think this is an excellent point and, because of this, the way fencers approach team events (aside from the GBR Nationals) varies quite a lot in the UK.

In Ireland, the Professor Duffy Team Epee is arguably the most prestigious tournament of the calender, with other team comps being hotly contested.

Personally, I've always taken the view that Fencing is an individual sport. However, there are huge gains that can be made by promoting a team or squad atmosphere. As a team you train better, have people loyal to a common goal to spar with, and inter-club rivalry will spur people to train harder.

Be great to have a club ranking based on team events - but the GBR calender would have to be streamlined severaly to allow this to happen.

Rdb811
-14th July 2006, 16:59
Personally, I've always taken the view that Fencing is an individual sport. However, there are huge gains that can be made by promoting a team or squad atmosphere. As a team you train better, have people loyal to a common goal to spar with, and inter-club rivalry will spur people to train harder.



This is true - we (i.e the club) put a lot into team events.

rugmike
-23rd July 2006, 10:37
I think this lack of support for teams is partially due to the lack of team competitions. Compare the number of opens for individuals with open team events nationally. There isn't the opportunity to learn to fence as part of a team, nor is there the recognition through a ranking system of the achievments of teams and individuals within teams. Because we, as British fencers, can't progress through a team sport we don't think to support the British team.
I agree, and have to say that some of the most exciting fencing I,ve watched/been involved in has been team - recent Quads a perfect example. You don't necessarily see the best fencing, but it really involves the crowd, etc... in a major way Events like the Excalibur, Winton, and Nationals, are the same. Support and reactions like that in Individual events, more often, would be a real improvement.