Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Women in fencing

  1. #21

    Default

    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.
    I will save you the youtube clip.

    So what would i do about it.

    First thing is I would do is announce that following a review the selections have been increase to twelve as per clause 16.
    I would make no reference to anything else there is no need (it is pretty much discretionary) but I would apply this clause equally to both genders. to do otherwise opens yourself up to questions of gender. Unless all terms can shown to be defined. Clause 16 on the face of it does not preclude gender differentiation unless "weapon" or "individual weapon" has definition. To not apply this clause equally can give the appearance that somehow it does indirectly. I am sure there are other policies out there against gender discrimination however I strongly believe you need to be seen to be living the policy. This policy has been called into question in its implementation. I personally have a low barrier on this.

    The consequence of the above is that other clauses kick in. Most of the other clauses have no discretion. They should just be applied.

    At some appropriate time the policy can be reviewed as per the stated procedures for review. I make no comment on how the selections work but if a cut off where introduced on the champ ranking selection. so be it.

    I have no direct immediate benefit from any of the above. (I am sure there are some who will think well thats why he is saying what what he is saying. I cant really answer that). I am not sure if this statement is in some way asymmetric or not for me - good or bad. I took a view at the onset not to work out who was or was not affected by this as it would cloud my judgement. And I have no wish to do forward looking analysis on it for the same reason. Obviously as things have been pointed out to me I have some idea. But I have no wish to think about this.

    There are some who will say this is all well and good but its a bit too late. All I can say is that sometimes it takes time to discover the possibility of discrimination and as per the main complaints policy somethings just don't have tight time limits.

    I will repeat if I may: for me silence can turn to shame. I took the view that whether I had any influence in this mater or not I could not remain silent. Until it is shown to me that this has not happened and could not happen again. I am in tears as I write this because I know there are folks out there affect and think they have been subject to discrimination. I don't know. But I for one will take their concerns seriously until the "athlete depth" definition is found.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.
    Not being familiar with the nuances of a 'two stream' ranking system I cannot comment on the specifics of the mechanics of selection.

    I can, and feel I should, comment on the 'athlete depth' argument.

    Whilst logically reasonable to assume that where there are more (higher volume of) high level athletes in one gender than another it would follow that more athletes are sent abroad from that gender, it is indefensible to apply this to national selections.

    If this argument was followed through to it's natural conclusion then all male fencing teams in the UK would be larger than women's due to the 'athlete depth' due to the fact that there are more male participants.

    A way of making this fair would be to quantify what it means to be a high level athlete which essentially would mean the introduction of a minimum standard which our fencer must achieve before being sent abroad (hard for juniors due to lack of satellites etc.). In this situation the selectors would be justified in sending unequal teams for men and women because there would only be a finite amount of athletes who have achieved the prerequisite for international competition.

    In absence of a clear and non-discretionary system for international qualification based on results of achievement outside of the British ranking system, the selection committee (or whatever it is these days) cannot justify the selection of more male athletes than female.

    All of the above is my opinion. Happy to be disproved.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I see that the JWF squad for Sofia in December published today comprises 9 fencers and not 12. No comparison with JMF is possible as the interesting decision to choose an U23 competition in Budapest as a nominated event was revoked earlier this month, to be replaced with Aix in January.

    I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but the first two paragraphs Section 6.1 of the GB Junior Selection Policy read as follows:

    15. At the start of the season the ADT will determine and publish the number of athlete places to
    be selected for each competition (either nine or twelve), with the intention that 12 places will
    be made available for most nominated tournaments held prior to 31/12.

    16. The JST will select the total number of athlete places plus three reserves. The ADT reserve the
    right to increase the number of athletes selected in accordance with needs of the individual
    weapon development strategy (up to twelve).


    Were the numbers of athlete places to be selected ever published at the start of the season? There doesn't appear to be anything on the BF site, but it may be somewhere not very obvious. Also, there is a clearly stated presumption/intention that there would be 12 places available for most nominated events to the end of the year (presumably to account for any peculiarities caused by the introduction of the Champions Race - and paragraph 16 was meant, generally, to apply after December). What changed between June, when the policy was announced, and late September, when Riga was initially selected?

  4. #24

    Default

    The first time I looked at the Luxembourg selections. I missed it. In fact even after three times I missed it.
    I then had to repeatedly count the number of entries in each section. In fact I still count the entries now probably in disbelief. I didn't understand why I didn't notice. it the first time. I think it was the format or font. On my screen the womens selections is near the bottom of the screen (sorry ladies). I looked at other weapons and noticed that some had numbering and some didn't.
    I remained silent ...

    Interestingly in foil for Eden it has numbering but for Sofia does not.
    In sabre for Varsovie the mens are numbered but the womens are not.

    Patterns are always interesting. Sometimes you can only observe them over time. Sometimes it can be revealing.
    Curious pattern

    This I believe is why organisations are generally cautious with tight time lines or just accept that somethings should not be as tightly time bound as others. And that judgement is needed.

    The threshold for reasonable expectation is an interesting concept. Is it reasonable to expect something even if there is a caveat if expected announced is not made as the rules say it should be. (i will go with that assumption that announcement was not made until shown otherwise). Should people expect 12 rather than 9. I'm not sure if the threshold has been passed or not but the volume of concerns is an interesting factor. Rules should be followed and I think it was in one of the documents I read quickly last night cause for review was if rules were not followed.

    Funny thing. I struggled to find the document again because the standard blurb of policies at the bottom of the recent announcements is missing. The Riga selections had it. I haven't checked all but the few I have checked previously to Riga also had notes. Not sure - i haven't checked enough.
    But I thought I would say something because at some point remaining silent...

    Patterns are always interesting. Sometimes you can only observe them over time. Sometimes it can be revealing.
    Curious pattern.

  5. #25

    Default "Follow the money"

    Are we just in a general trend towards teams sizes of 9 for all the women or all of the squads?

    Putting aside how its being implemented for now and who is in the first wave and how they have been targeted.

    Any ideas on why 9 is so much more important than 12?

    Do we not have enough TMs, Referees or coaches available for all the competitions?

    Are there higher levies or entry fees if we send more athletes? or perhaps different fee structures for bigger teams?

    Are the logistics just that much harder or more costly?

    Are there other extra organisational fees or costs?

    I had been wondering if we looking just looking at the same "athlete depth" issue in foil? I had thought foil was one of the bigger weapons
    seems not. So how do we increase the depth? How we increase the number of women in fencing? I have ideas on how we go about decreasing already small numbers.

  6. #26
    Senior Member danKew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reigate
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    Any ideas on why 9 is so much more important than 12?.
    For starters, 9 requires 1 ref, 12 requires 2.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    In sabre for Varsovie the mens are numbered but the womens are not.

    Patterns are always interesting. Sometimes you can only observe them over time. Sometimes it can be revealing.
    Curious pattern
    I will have to keep looking at it. I kind of liked the previous format. I thought it told me more but I think the new format creates more of a pyramid effect. Not sure why?

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    I will have to keep looking at it. I kind of liked the previous format. I thought it told me more but I think the new format creates more of a pyramid effect. Not sure why?
    As this post has gone on your contributions have been increasingly emotional and conspiracy driven. Are you ok? I think you points are made with more strength when you stick to the issues and donít diverge into consipiracy based rambling.

    Iíve been told iím slightly abrupt on here so I apologise in advance and I donít mean to cause you offence itís just I think there is a valid point to be explored here but that we should stick to the facts and convey our questions and assertions in a simple and concise way...

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    As this post has gone on your contributions have been increasingly emotional and conspiracy driven. Are you ok? I think you points are made with more strength when you stick to the issues and donít diverge into consipiracy based rambling.

    Iíve been told iím slightly abrupt on here so I apologise in advance and I donít mean to cause you offence itís just I think there is a valid point to be explored here but that we should stick to the facts and convey our questions and assertions in a simple and concise way...
    Thanks for your direct feedback. I understand that the the style of some of my posts may not be appreciated by all. I also understand that the content of some of the posts may not make welcome reading or may not be welcome by many however some of the questions raised in my view will need to be looked at if not now at some point.

    The facts are that junior sabre women had 9 selected and sabre men had 12 selected. This difference in numbers may have been there for some time and historic and maybe be justified in someway. "I don't know.". I do appreciate that the concept of "athlete depth" is very hard to define. Particularly when there are different populations for the different weapons and genders (I have had a brief look at the numbers in each weapon and gender). Let me put it on record I do not envy the task of the selectors. I am learning to appreciate the difficult of the task they face as my research and thinking has progress. Which is why I would question why exercise discretion when on the face of it, it is not needed.

    It is a fact that the selection lists for the weapons are published inconsistently. And on the whole the womens are not numbered (particularly) when the selected number is less than the mens. Interestingly, Epee is not one of those (from memory). I do not know how the lists are put together or published so I will not speculate on the reasons. I was just talking on the aesthetics of it. How it looks. Which I can understand some will not appreciate.
    Someone (or someones) changed the junior sabre selections publication in the last two days - the natural time to do so was when the places are published as accepted. As I don't know how the publishing works or how many people are involved all I can say re: conspiracy "there was no collusion. I didn't know the president. There was nobody to collude with. There was no collusion with the campaign."

    There is lots of material from that source I could use but most of which is inappropriate (or would be viewed as an ad hominem attack).

    I look forward to the day when I can celebrate "women in fencing". If not now at some point in the future. Ideas on how to increase the numbers should be welcomed by all.

  10. #30
    Paul Sibert Foilling Around's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lead Performance Coach at Nottingham University
    Posts
    5,128

    Default

    My solution to the Rolling vs Rankings Race.

    Rolling gives weight to a lot of results up to 12 months on, and doesn't account for form.

    Rankings race advantages one fluke result rather than long term success.

    I would reduce the multiplier by 50% for results over 6 months old and by 75% for results over 9 months old.

    That would create one ranking covering both f the potential problems.

    British Fencing AASE Assessor
    British Fencing Coach Developer

    Veteran Foil Champion of Szombathely 2015 and 2016!!

  11. #31
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foilling Around View Post

    I would reduce the multiplier by 50% for results over 6 months old and by 75% for results over 9 months old.

    This sounds like an elegant solution to me. Maybe it would need the calendar to be less compressed and front loaded than it has been this year to work in practice though. Or perhaps the selections themselves to be staggered more. In Jnr WE two of the three nominated comps were selected at the same time after the first four week period containing the first three ranking comps.

    Then there was a 4th BRC (this last weekend) three weeks later. Could the 2nd nominated comp (two weeks after the first) not have been selected for after the 4th ranking event? Or are there reason this happens? Just curious.

  12. #32

    Default

    9 requires 1 ref, 12 requires 2.
    Is this the only / main difference between a team of 9 vs 12?

    Does anyone know what the fine is for not having enough referees?

    It occurs to me that fundraising for the fine for the three womens teams may be achievable.

    Not sending a team of 12 seems to be self fulfilling in terms of never having enough depth for the womens events.

    I seem to remember something about sponsorship for the Women sabre team (senior i think?). Does anyone remember the background / thread for it. Apologies I tried to look for it.

  13. #33
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    Is this the only / main difference between a team of 9 vs 12?

    Does anyone know what the fine is for not having enough referees?

    It occurs to me that fundraising for the fine for the three womens teams may be achievable.

    Not sending a team of 12 seems to be self fulfilling in terms of never having enough depth for the womens events.

    I seem to remember something about sponsorship for the Women sabre team (senior i think?). Does anyone remember the background / thread for it. Apologies I tried to look for it.
    Only one team can enter per country to the team comp. For Burgos at least, this may be a general Jnr World Cup rule, I'm not sure.

    If a ref were £400-£500 to send then the extra cost per fencer for the 2nd ref would be about £25. I couldn't see what the fine would be. Maybe that's a standard amount.

Posting Permissions

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