Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 77

Thread: Selection choices- option A

  1. #21
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    It was just with your understanding of the committee and the fact that you had discussed the issues on Face book with Duncan, who gave his opinion on the Options; I was very surprised that you had not realised that committee members were free to express their own opinions.
    Reading what there is on the BVF thread, it seems very much to me that Duncan has been answering questions people have been asking and summarizing what was already in the working party's report. So is putting forward the groups view, which may or may not be his direct views, as he seems to be the main point of contact and Info.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    As you have said, we are unlikely to agree, so unless Duncan would like to explain why using the Nationals is illogical and seriously flawed or there are any other questions to raise we have probably covered most of the issues.
    If you read my above posts I think I have covered lots of issues with cover why having a 'mixed age-group Nationals' as a selection event does have flaws in my opinion. I do not see the logic in having it as a selection event if there are better options available, such as split age-group events.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Chris,
    I thought you were bowing out, however I can not let you get away with your comment-
    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    Reading what there is on the BVF thread, it seems very much to me that Duncan has been answering questions people have been asking and summarizing what was already in the working party's report. So is putting forward the groups view, which may or may not be his direct views, as he seems to be the main point of contact and Info.
    I have already quoted one of the posts Duncan has made on Facebook.
    Duncan Rowlands

    For the European Teams selection is solely from fencersí positions in the National Championships. (This is untrue. The age groups will be held at the beginning of the year so can be used for European Team Selection).
    Opinion: The use of a mixed age group event to select for separate age group events (which the Worlds and the Euros are) is illogical and seriously flawed.
    He actually labels some of his posts as 'opinion'.

    John Mason the longest serving member of the Veterans Committee posted on FB-
    During this period of uncertainty I have been saying to members "We have agreed to try the new format for a year, then it will be reviewed. If you don't like it then you can throw it out".
    Option C is just implementing that promise. Let us turn back the clock to a known position then focus on developing a ranking system based on a range of events.
    When the committee voted to include Option C only 1 member opposed the decision. This person does not represent the views of the committee, and analysis of the working groups report has shown how the feedback has been distorted to reach a particular conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    If you read my above posts I think I have covered lots of issues with cover why having a 'mixed age-group Nationals' as a selection event does have flaws in my opinion. I do not see the logic in having it as a selection event if there are better options available, such as split age-group events.
    To say that selection from the Nationals is illogical and deeply flawed is plainly wrong. You and Duncan may not agree with it, there are clearly other ways, but that does not back it illogical and deeply flawed. An illogical system might be to choose the team alphabetically.
    As I have said the very same system was used for years, with the event at the begining of the year, without any problems.

  3. #23
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Not doing long posts. But again your post has left things hanging.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    To say that selection from the Nationals is illogical and deeply flawed is plainly wrong.
    In the same way you feel your opinion is the right one, I think your opinion is flawed. Nothing wrong with that, we have differing opinions.

    Having the vote to include C was a logical thing to do, as that had previously been promised to the membership I believe.

    I would not be surprised however if you get your way on C as the vote is unduly weighted to it's advantage as no change, or returning to what people are use to is the usual winner of votes, especially as the change vote will be split across 2 choices.

    I suspect that would be why someone involved in trying to modernize the system on the committee would choose to vote against having that option, as the vote will advantage it.

    A two phase vote, one on whether to go back to the old system or not, then if voted to have a new format on exactly what format that should be (A or B), would I think have been a better way, but more strung out voting system. To late for that..

    As it is, there is a good chance that less than 50% of the membership will vote for any option, which will then lead to people saying the majority of the membership did not vote for that option. Look at any general election in the UK..

    I hope whatever that the result ends up having over 50% vote for any option, as it will then put the issue to bed whatever for the foreseeable future.

    I am hoping that I have not put anything that you will feel needs any reply, as both you and I could probably spend our time more productively.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  4. #24
    General care taker kingkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Chris and Graham, two people that have to get the last word in....

    this thread may go on until we are all Veteran fencers.



    Please note this is a joke.
    Leon Paul Fencing Equipment
    Anyone who thinks video games cause violence should be dragged into the street and shot.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    I am hoping that I have not put anything that you will feel needs any reply, as both you and I could probably spend our time more productively.
    Chris,
    You do not escape as easily as that!

    All the options have flaws, I am just putting forward what I think will be best for BVF.

    However I do think that all the options have a certain logic to them and to say that option C is illogical as Duncan has done and you by implication have agreed with, is perverse. If it is illogical then all of BF selection schemes are illogical.

    Duncan does not seem to want to come on the Forum for some reason, so the debate has remained between you and me.

    The fairest vote would have been a transferrable vote, where people vote vote their first and second preference.

    I suspect that we will end up with different systems for different categories, which would not be the a good thing for BVF overall.

    PS
    if you post that you agree with everything I say I will keep quiet, promise.

  6. #26
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    All the options have flaws, I am just putting forward what I think will be best for BVF.
    Agreed, as do I.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    However I do think that all the options have a certain logic to them and to say that option C is illogical as Duncan has done and you by implication have agreed with, is perverse. If it is illogical then all of BF selection schemes are illogical.
    Yes and no. BF selection and Vets selections are different, that is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Duncan does not seem to want to come on the Forum for some reason, so the debate has remained between you and me.
    Which is totally his right and I do not think anyone should have a go at him for that, as he is communicating with the BVF membership on the BVF facebook page.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    The fairest vote would have been a transferrable vote, where people vote vote their first and second preference.
    That is one option, with the 2 stage option an additional also preferable option, however as I said, the vote scheme is in place already and it is too late to influence it,

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    I suspect that we will end up with different systems for different categories, which would not be the a good thing for BVF overall.
    In reality different weapons for BF senior rankings have differing points systems in the way they give NIFs for events, due to the differing sizes of competitors in weapons. The massive difference in numbers of competitors in the Cat 1 Epee, compared to Cat 4 Ladies sabre for example, does mean differing selection systems may actually be beneficial for BVF, but obviously I have not looked at that thoroughly.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    PS - if you post that you agree with everything I say I will keep quiet, promise.
    Diitto..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post

    In reality different weapons for BF senior rankings have differing points systems in the way they give NIFs for events, due to the differing sizes of competitors in weapons. The massive difference in numbers of competitors in the Cat 1 Epee, compared to Cat 4 Ladies sabre for example, does mean differing selection systems may actually be beneficial for BVF, but obviously I have not looked at that thoroughly.

    Diitto..:)
    This is the reason why we differ. You and Duncan are looking at what you think is best for your category. I am looking at what I believe is best for BVF. If some categories go for A and some for C it will be detrimental for bvf
    Regarding your ditto, too late I said it first.
    .

  8. #28
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    This is the reason why we differ. You and Duncan are looking at what you think is best for your category. I am looking at what I believe is best for BVF.
    How do you know what I or Duncan or anyone else is thinking? If the majority of the committee felt any of the options would be detrimental to BVF, I am pretty sure they would not have been allowed to be an option to be voted on.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    If some categories go for A and some for C it will be detrimental for bvf.
    Having slightly differing systems used for categories, does not have to be detrimental for bvf. I am not saying it should happen, but if BF can use varied selection schemes for weapons at senior levels, let alone between seniors, juniors & cadets (as you seem to think we should do similar things to BF selection policy), having some flexibility between Category 1 Men's Epee and Category 4 Women's Sabre for example, considering the difference in fencer numbers must not be discounted.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Regarding your ditto, too late I said it first.
    I was agreeing with you in principle, surely that should be applauded...
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Chris
    You stated that you obviously had not considered category 4 ladies so it is not an unreasonable assumption that you were concentrating on category 1 epeeists?
    I get nervous when you agree with me.

  10. #30
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    You stated that you obviously had not considered category 4 ladies so it is not an unreasonable assumption that you were concentrating on category 1 epeeists?
    I do not think I ever put that I had not considered category 4 ladies, but wrote 'but obviously I have not looked at that thoroughly', which is very different.

    I do realize that the numbers in these events are often half a dozen fencers or less sometimes, so that is actually why I think to try to have a 'one size fits all' system is probably not the best option and some flexibility is not a bad thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    I get nervous when you agree with me.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  11. #31

    Default

    I think I've witnessed perpetual motion

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    I do not think I ever put that I had not considered category 4 ladies, but wrote 'but obviously I

    I do realize that the numbers in these events are often half a dozen fencers or less sometimes, so that is actually why I think to try to have a 'one size fits all' system is probably not the best option and some flexibility is not a bad thing.

    So Chris from being certain that option A was best you have finally come round to 'one size doesn't fit all'.
    if you had been at AGM you would have seen my presentation on that very issue.
    We either compromise and use the old system that worked for all or run different schemes for different categories.

  13. #33
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    [QUOTE=graham paul;320805]So Chris from being certain that option A was best you have finally come round to 'one size doesn't fit all'.
    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    I do think any of the choices are compromises, but compromise is usually the best way to get to the middle group that fits most.
    Think you are reading someone else's posts. One of my first posts on this thread. None of the options will be perfect for all.

    However Option A does have a way of dealing with this as if less than a certain number of entrants were in a category they would have poules merged with another age-group, so not one fit all, but has options if numbers require.

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    We either compromise and use the old system that worked for all or run different schemes for different categories.
    Your compromise is to choose option C, which you say worked for all, but it did not work for lots of fencers (I disliked the age-group format specifically, did it once and do not think I have gone back). Also makes it the luck of a single day as to whether someone qualifies or not.

    My compromise option is A, which also has flexibility on smaller sized categories, so has the ability to work for all. Also gives a series of events to which people can qualify from so if someone is ill, injured or otherwise committed on single day, they can make up for it at the other events.

    I do not think any of the options are perfect, but in my view A is the best of the bunch for the huge majority of fencers.

    But as always, only my opinion and you have the complete right to think C would be best.

    We all have the complete right to have opinions and I have never made out you are wrong in your views, just that I prefer my preferred option for the reasons I have posted, which are logical to me, others can choose their own view.

    Just when the vote is complete I hope it is over...
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Chris
    You appear to have misunderstood options A&C
    Option A does not have flexibility. If there are 2 entries there is a poule of 2 followed by DE. There's no suggestion of mixing the age groups. If the next competition has 6 entries the first competition winner will score one third of the points of the winner of the second competition.
    Contary to what you have said in option C there are chances of qualifying at 2 competitions.
    I entirely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but those opinions should be based on the facts!

  15. #35
    Member jacquesdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
    Posts
    150

    Default

    My tuppence.

    I find the Age Group Qualifier grueling, arduous, challenging and unforgiving; it does go down to results on the day.

    I cannot think of a better way to determine the best fencer who, after all, needs to do well in poule rounds before the different challenge of a DE.
    The longer I do it the harder it gets.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacquesdor View Post
    My tuppence.

    I cannot think of a better way to determine the best fencer who, after all, needs to do well in poule rounds before the different challenge of a DE.
    DE is not a bad way of choosing the best fencer. However selecting for the world championships requires 4 fencers and reserves, something that a single competition run on DE basis is far from ideal.

  17. #37
    Member jacquesdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
    Posts
    150

    Default

    I may not have been clear. I think the age group qualifier is a good way to select fencers for competitions with poules.
    The longer I do it the harder it gets.

  18. #38
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Chris
    You appear to have misunderstood options A&C
    Option A does not have flexibility. If there are 2 entries there is a poule of 2 followed by DE. There's no suggestion of mixing the age groups. If the next competition has 6 entries the first competition winner will score one third of the points of the winner of the second competition.
    Contary to what you have said in option C there are chances of qualifying at 2 competitions.
    Here is the extracted quote from Appendix 2 - BVF Selection Process - Option A

    BVF Selection Events - Competition Format
    Pools
    Constitution
    All fencers entered in a competition will fence within their respective age category, except as
    provided below.

    Where fewer than 6 fencers are entered in a category then these fencers will normally combine with
    the fencers in the other age category within their associated EVFC Team Championship Veteran or
    Grand Veteran age section. Thus, categories 1 and 2 would combine into a group of pools, while
    categories 3 and 4 would combine into a group of pools.

    Alternatively, if a majority of the fencers in the category affected are in favour, they may fence within
    their age category in a short pool.


    Therefore there is going to be mixed age-group poule where it will work for the weapon.

    And yes I agree the way the NIF is calculated could be improved, however as I have said this is a compromise option, however this system will encourage fencers to attend as many events as possible to improve their chances of qualifying, which cannot be a bad thing (and is what BF has done for Cadets and juniors, and you do like to say BVF should do what BF does). Maybe an improvement once the system is up and running would be to adapt the NIF system to something more like what England Youth work with (but this is a bit more complicated than this system).

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    I entirely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but those opinions should be based on the facts!
    As such I think you should follow your own advice of actually reading the full document and not accusing people are not using the facts, as the above is very clearly documented, when you seem to have little idea of them yourself..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  19. #39
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    DE is not a bad way of choosing the best fencer. However selecting for the world championships requires 4 fencers and reserves, something that a single competition run on DE basis is far from ideal.
    From BVF Document

    Option A - Ranking Scheme

    Fencers are placed on a ranking list in order of the sum of the ranking points awarded from their
    best 2 results from a circuit of 3 competitions.


    But surely the selection will be based on someone's best 2 results out of a 3 event circuit as stated above on the BVF document. Why are you saying it would be from a 'single competition run on DE basis'.

    Are you trying to scaremonger, or are you not aware of the details of option A? I hope it is not the former!!
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  20. #40
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacquesdor View Post
    I cannot think of a better way to determine the best fencer who, after all, needs to do well in poule rounds before the different challenge of a DE.
    Harrison Nichols won the British Youth Championships for I think 6 years in a row at differing age-groups, on at least 4 of those occasions he lost 2 or more fights in the first round poules. When I won the senior British Championships I lost 3 first round poule fights.

    Being good at poule fights helps you get a good seed and maybe an easier draw, however only winning DEs will get you through to the later stages of European/World Championships.

    And now with the relay system being adopted for Vets Team championships, using a poule fight event to select for Euro teams is also now out of date.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •