Rating Systems

Rating Systems

Post by Eric Speich » Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:15:00


On 12-14-94 MORGAN BURKE wrote about Re: Tournament Format

MB>In Canada, fencers are ranked on a point system, in which points
MB>are earned in every tournament.  The more opponents you beat and
MB>the more tournaments you enter, the more points you get, so it
MB>isn't necessarily a good indicator of skill (classification is better
MB>but coarser), but rather of participation in large tournaments.
MB>Still, it is acceptable for ranking fencers within a given class.

So, from my understanding of this, in Canada, there are both a oclasso
rating and a points rating?  And fencers within each class are rated
against each other on points?

In the USFA presently there are of course our letter classification and
national point systems.  George Masin has proposed a changing the letter
classification system to a points based system that would work by using
the results of a tournament and modifying the competitors points similar
to the method done in chess.  Some of us locally have discussed this
system and do not favor it because it would discourage some of our top
fencers out here from participating in local tournaments where they
would have to balance the little if any they could gain, against the
possibility of losing points.

I favor a system similar to those I seen used in European countries,
(Austria, Germany, Netherlands...) where each result is worth a certain
number of points, determined by your finishing position and the strength
of the field, and your best n results (where n is a number 5 -11) during
the past year to date determine your points rating.  This sort of method
encourages fencers to participate in as many tournaments as possible, to
hope to get a result which surpasses one of you other top n results.

One difficulty of this, or even the Masin system, is the rating of each
fencer would (or could) change with each tournament, requiring fencers
to be updated right at the tournaments to avoid lag time between a
tournament one weekend and a tournament the next.  The national office
would have to be continually updated with the full results and
subsequent changes in rating for every tournament across the nation, an
increase in services that they might not be able to handle.

I believe that most of the European nations have a passport-type
membership identification with pages to list  the results of every
tournament competed in.  I very interested to here from those outside of
the US to confirm or deny my understanding and expand upon any
advantages and challenges that their system creates.

I donAt think that our letter rating system is horrible, but one very
lucky result can create a fencer who starts helping a whole area
increase in rating.  Also, it seems strange to have a sytem which is
based on your single best result in the past four years.

   ]         Eric Speicher  12/19/94
==/===)---

---
* CmpQwk #UNREG* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

 
 
 

Rating Systems

Post by A9020.. » Thu, 22 Dec 1994 01:42:02


Quote:

>I favor a system similar to those I seen used in European countries,
>(Austria, Germany, Netherlands...) where each result is worth a certain
>number of points, determined by your finishing position and the strength
>of the field, and your best n results (where n is a number 5 -11) during
>the past year to date determine your points rating.  This sort of method
>encourages fencers to participate in as many tournaments as possible, to
>hope to get a result which surpasses one of you other top n results.

In Holland we have a point system. One can earn points at every tournament
as long as it was announced on the Dutch calender, and participation is
not restricted (ofcourse age and nationality restrictions are allowed in
junior and national tournaments respectively).
The five best results count.
For each tournament the maximum number is calculated with some very
difficult and ingeneous formulas. The first contains the number of partici-
pants as a variable, the second the number of countries represented and the
third the number and place of participants with worldranking.
The strenght is expressed in percentages: an A-grade will typically be
between 80 and 90 %. If you win it you get the precentage * 10. The lower
your final position the lower the number of points: reaching last 64 will
still get you percentage * 2.5. BUT in order to get points at all, you have
to survive at least two rounds in which fencers are eliminated, or survive
to a point where you have left 40 percent of the participants behind you.
Dutch sabre tournements with 30-40 participants (dutch only) are round 18
percent. You need at least 800 points to go to A-grades, and normally 1500
to go to World Champs. Because we're organizing the 95 WC, the points
required has been lowered to 1000.
Son now you need on average 200 per tournament, meaning that fencing in
Dutch national tournaments is quite useless. That is downside to the
system. The only one I can figure out at this moment.
Points earned stay on the list until the tournament is held again. You
either have to defend them, or you lose them.  If a tournament is not
held again (or within 13 months) the points are discarded.

Quote:
>One difficulty of this, or even the Masin system, is the rating of each
>fencer would (or could) change with each tournament, requiring fencers
>to be updated right at the tournaments to avoid lag time between a
>tournament one weekend and a tournament the next.  The national office
>would have to be continually updated with the full results and
>subsequent changes in rating for every tournament across the nation, an
>increase in services that they might not be able to handle.

New rankings are made available every first of the month. As we are a small
country with less than 1000 active tournement fencers this is feasable.
For national tourneys the organizers are reponsible for sending in the results
for international meets, the fencers bring back a copy of the final results
or ask the organizers to send a copy to the federation. As far as I know
there has never been any fraudulent behaviour.

Anton

 
 
 

Rating Systems

Post by Morgan Bur » Thu, 22 Dec 1994 06:16:03

|> On 12-14-94 MORGAN BURKE wrote about Re: Tournament Format
|>
|> MB>In Canada, fencers are ranked on a point system, in which points
|> MB>are earned in every tournament.  The more opponents you beat and
|> MB>the more tournaments you enter, the more points you get, so it
|> MB>isn't necessarily a good indicator of skill (classification is better
|> MB>but coarser), but rather of participation in large tournaments.
|> MB>Still, it is acceptable for ranking fencers within a given class.
|>
|> So, from my understanding of this, in Canada, there are both a oclasso
|> rating and a points rating?  And fencers within each class are rated
|> against each other on points?

The national rankings that are published by the CFF are sorted by
points only, with the letter class given in a separate column.
As a result, there are usually some semi-retired A's and B's down in
the bottom half, and some really keen B's in the top 10 or 20.  
Nationals used to be closed to the top 50-80 fencers, but I don't know
how they resolved this in the case of A or B fencers who just didn't
enter that many tournamets (due to budget, injury, travel, or whatever).

It seems sensible to seed fencers by class first and points second, but
I haven't read the manual recently, and I'm not sure that this is actually
the proper procedure, or if points are the only consideration.  Off the
top of my head (usually a mistake) you earn the following points at each
tournament:

        - (t-p)+1, where t is the total number of entries and p is your
          placing.  ie. 1st place gets t points, last place gets 1.
        - quality points, which are calculated based on the
          classifications of the competitors.
        - bonus points for placing in the top 3.

Points earned at elite events are also recorded separately and used
for national team qualification.

The results of your best 5 opens, the sectionals, and nationals
(total of 7 events) over the previous year are used to determine your
point total.

|> One difficulty of this, or even the Masin system, is the rating of each
|> fencer would (or could) change with each tournament, requiring fencers
|> to be updated right at the tournaments to avoid lag time between a
|> tournament one weekend and a tournament the next.  The national office
|> would have to be continually updated with the full results and
|> subsequent changes in rating for every tournament across the nation, an
|> increase in services that they might not be able to handle.

Tournament organizers should try to use the most up to date rankings
list they can, of course (they can be downloaded from the CFF BBS).  
In the case of elite tournaments, where it really matters, the
organizers use the up-to-the-minute lists, but small local tournaments
often just guess based on the classifications.  There is a lag between
when tournaments complete and when the results show up in the lists,
due to Canada Post's usual delays and administrative load, but nobody
seems to worry about this.  Classifications aren't such a big deal,
since they are only given out at year-end, and one list should last
you all season.

|> I believe that most of the European nations have a passport-type
|> membership identification with pages to list  the results of every
|> tournament competed in.  I very interested to here from those outside of
|> the US to confirm or deny my understanding and expand upon any
|> advantages and challenges that their system creates.

Passports are used in Canada as well, but with the automation and
centralization of record keeping, they aren't really necessary anymore.  
They do make for a nice record of your fencing history, however, and
are a handy place for related documentation (CFF/FIE competition
licences, presiding qualifications, etc.)

-- Morgan Burke