-
Title
-
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : II. Those Pesky Classifications
-
Date
-
February 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
1
-
pages
-
3-5, 16
-
content
-
en
THE NEW RULES BOOK—SIDELIGHTS AND COMMENTS II—THOSE PESKY CLASSIFICATIONS
By Miguel A. de Capriles
Chairman of A.F.L.A. and I.C.F.A. Rules Committees
Among the hundreds of letters on the A.F.L.A. Rules which I have accumulated during the past few years, there are a few which typically read as follows:
“Dear Mike: Why in blazes can’t you fellows in New York write the Rules so that ordinary fellows can understand them? You people simply have no conception of the problems that we have to face here. For instance, only last week, Jenny Smith won second place in the Centreville Lawn-Fencing Outdoor Handicap Individual Gala Championship. She claims to be still a novice, while some of her opponents say that she must be considered an intermediate. Nothing in your blessed rules seems to cover this situation, and there has been a protest about her entry in the Divisional Juniors. If only you fellows would give some thought to situations like this one, you could save us a lot of trouble. Please make your rules more specific, so as to avoid arguments. Sincerely yours, etc. . . .”
The Rules on Classification have given rise to innumerable problems. A time has been when the Board of Governors has appointed special committees to consider and recommend the revision of these Rules. Only a year ago, Dr. Norman Armitage, rendered a report which formed the basis of our present rules on the subject. Much time has been spent on these problems, more changes have been made in the last ten years, and more irritating questions have arisen out of these than perhaps out of any other Rules. In other words, the Rules on Classification are probably the peskiest, most ornery regulations that it has ever been our bad luck to encounter.
Your Rules Committee, I think, examined the problem as thoroughly as it is humanly possible to do; it went into the rationale of classifications, the history of our present categories, the major types of complaint, the various possible factual situations which gave rise to complaints, alternative methods of classification used in other sports, and in fencing in other countries. Out of this study came the realization that in the past too much emphasis has been placed on building up more categories, and on attempting to define exactly all possible methods by which a fencer may move from one class to another, without sufficient consideration of the basic inequalities of competitive strength in different sections of the country, or of the myriad of possible titles and classifications of competition in a League comprising as many local divisions as the A.F.L.A.
We do not claim to have solved the problem once and for all. As a matter of fact, our present rules have some weaknesses which should be corrected in the next few years. But I believe that we have laid the foundation for a workable solution of this problem on a national basis. It is the purpose of this article to present to you the basis of my belief.
WHAT THE RULES INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH
The Rules Book for the first time (Rule 8) states clearly the purpose of the Rules on Classification: to provide reasonable equality of strength in certain competitions. Axiomatic? Of course, but once you define the basic principle, you are on your way to a systematic solution of the problem. Examine, then, the specific rules and see how they work out in practice. You will find that they work out fairly well within any one division. However, a real difficulty arises when Mr. A, who is the best fencer in the X Division, goes to compete in the Y Division and finds that, theoretically, he may rank with the top men in Y, but practically his skill would rate him among the second or third flight in Division Y. How can you then provide him “reasonable equality of strength in competition” in inter-division (sectional or national) events?
HISTORY OF OUR CLASSIFICATIONS
Our present classifications, five in number, are the result of a long and tortuous process of building up new categories to meet such specific situations. When the A.F.L.A. was founded, all competitions were “open”—that is, all fencers were eligible to compete in them. There were no classifications or restrictions of entry except those of sex. This did not mean that we did not have a chain, it was just too bad. However, as the League grew in size and strength, the “junior” class was added, and some competitions, limited to juniors, were scheduled. At this time, “junior” (a term borrowed from our A.A.U. affiliation) meant anyone who had never won a medal. By 1925, we had expanded our classifications to four: “Junior” had grown into a term. It meant, briefly, anyone who had not placed in the national open championship; or who had not won first place in the divisional open or junior championships, or in the national junior championship; or who had not been an international fencer. “Novice” now became the term for those who had not won medals; at one time there was also a two-year limit on the novice. “Prep” was a term applied to a fencer entering his first competition; after that he automatically became a novice.
A few years ago, the “intermediate” classification was born out of the inequalities of strength in various sections of the country. Winners of “junior” events in many divisions, or even of “senior” events, who thereby became “seniors,” found themselves seriously handicapped by loss of competitive opportunities in sectional and national events. Both the fencers and their divisional officers were ready to concede that, on the basis of their current skill, they were not yet ready for “senior” ranking on a sectional or national basis. What to do? Build up a new class! By calling such recent “intermediates,” they remained eligible for the national junior championship, while at the same time they were barred from the divisional junior events. But this solution simply added another rung to the ladder—calling for even more meticulous distinctions as between one step and the next. Practically, it resulted in new “intermediate” events in sectional and divisional schedules, but the basic problem of inter-divisional ratings was not materially nearer solution.
TRANSITION FROM ONE CLASS TO ANOTHER.
The principles which govern transition from one classification to another have remained surprisingly constant. Only in the lowest class is there an automatic time limit. The former time limit on the "novice" class was eliminated when that class no longer was the lowest in rank. The dominating principle of transition is competitive achievement. The rules list specific events which a fencer must win, or place in, in order to move to a higher group. This principle is, I believe, sound. Its chief virtue is objectivity: Competitive prizes won by various fencers are a matter of official record, not of personal opinion. Of course, classification might be made by a committee, as is done in some other sports, and in fencing in some countries. But a critical examination of our situation leads to the conclusion that the objective standard is best for us.
One of the reasons lies in our rule of non-retrogression. That is, once a fencer has achieved a higher rank, he never can be classified in a lower category (Rule 9). Your Rules Committee examined this question very carefully, and decided in favor of the rule. This decision was based upon the nature of fencing itself: It is a lifetime sport, and competitive experience is a powerful factor in the sum-total of competitive ability. While a fencer, as he grows older, may lose speed, timing, and coordination, he constantly accumulates greater and greater experience or "head" to counterbalance the loss of his physical powers. Therefore, it is impossible to apply objective tests to any scheme which permits retrogression, such as one which would allow an internationalist to fall back into the "junior" class. I am not speaking now of the list of Ranking Fencers, which is independent of our five basic classifications, and which I shall consider in a later article.
Furthermore, we must go back to our original purpose in having Rules on Classification: Obviously the rationale of the whole system lies in the protection of younger and less experienced fencers, who have not yet achieved the peak of their ability, rather than in providing new opportunities for fencers who have already had their chance to bask in the limelight of victory. Certainly, whatever opportunities for competition may be provided for those who have slipped in their competitive powers, these should not be provided at the expense of those who are still on the way up. Some other solution, such as that envisaged when the "Veteran" class was established five years ago, is probably better. I shall deal with this question in a later article. At any rate, your Rules Committee preferred our objective standard and our rule of non-retrogression to the rating system in polo, or the handicap system in golf.
Two recent changes in the Rules of Classification indicate that these views are not wholly new. At one time, a college fencer who made the varsity in any official college competition was automatically classified as a "junior," even if he went into a dual meet as a fifth substitute after the match had been already won. A few years ago, the rule was amended to classify as "juniors" only those fencers who competed in the various recognized championships. Even this rule has been abandoned now for over a year. The number of colleges participating in various official intercollegiate championships has greatly increased, and the number of college fencers, of varying degrees of ability, has grown to astronomic proportions. Taking all these factors into consideration, the Classification Committee decided to apply the objective test of competitive accomplishments—the actual winning of a prize in an intercollegiate championship—to determine "junior" ranking for college fencers.
Another recent change modifies our former strict rule that the classification of a fencer in one weapon does not affect his classification in another weapon. Under our new rules, a senior in one weapon automatically becomes a novice in all the others. The reason behind this is the fact that competitive experience in one weapon is easily transferable to another, so that a senior should not be considered as a prep in any weapon any longer. This rule was recommended by the Committee on Classifications and adopted well over a year ago. Your Rules Committee decided to let this scheme stand, although several members of the Rules Committee were inclined to believe that it did not go far enough, and that the better rule would be to make an intermediate in one weapon automatically a novice in the other weapons while a senior in one weapon should automatically become a junior in the other weapons. There is much merit in this idea, and it is being filed for formal consideration at a later date. Its rationale is much the same as that behind the principle of non-retrogression: the importance of experience in determining competitive skill.
THE MODERN TREND. Despite the improvements effected in the provisions of the Rules on Classification, the problem raised by the inequalities of competitive strength in various parts of the country still remained to be solved. And in this connection, your Rules Committee came to the conclusion that the real solution lay, not in the Classification Rules themselves but in the making of schedules. The more fruitful approach to our problem, we believed, was to try to standardize the scheme of competitions which affected the official classification of fencers throughout the country.
We were of the opinion that in the prep, novice, and junior ranks, each division should have all the leeway in the world to protect their younger and less experienced fencers. Thus, you will see that the specific rules are supplemented by a principle of construction (Rule 9-h) which resolves doubt in favor of the higher class in the first three categories. On the other hand, the inter-divisional classification problem arises mostly in the junior, intermediate and senior ranks, since it is mostly competition in these ranks that will attend sectional and national events. Therefore, standardization and tightening of the requirements for these higher classifications was indicated.
The first step was taken by the national Board of Governors over a year ago, in prescribing a limited use of the word "championship" in the title of regularly scheduled competitions. By a self-imposed rule, the term "national championship" was highly restricted, to be used only in the most important events in the League. The "national championship tournament," held during a gala week, was scheduled so as to make it possible for fencers throughout the country to participate in the nationals. This resulted in the elimination of “national championship” rating in the lower categories, such as the national junior championship; and, at least for the time being, in the elimination of such events as the national outdoor epee and sabre championships, which had a long history but which in effect were restricted, by the exigencies of scheduling, to competitors in the eastern divisions, except in occasional Olympic years. At the same time, the Board of Governors limited the use of the term “championship” in sectional events, so that such a title may not be used in events below the class of intermediate. Any junior or novice events held at the sectional tournament must be classed as plain “competitions” and not as championships. Furthermore no competition below the rank of “junior,” even in a division, may officially rate as a “championship” (Rule 14).
Now, this may seem to be a high-handed interference with the rights of local divisions and sections: but think it over carefully. Unless some such limitation is worked out, we could have such spurious title-holders as the “All-Eastern Prep Champion” or “The National Novice Champion”—titles which would serve no useful purpose except to tickle the vanity of a mediocre fencer who has still to prove his real worth.
On the other hand, consider the advantages of these regulations in connection with the Rules on Classification: a fencer can now become a senior ONLY by specific achievements in national or sectional championships. Divisional events do not count, so that the weakness or strength of his particular division is minimized. If the fencer wins or places in national or sectional championships, he has a solid record of achievement which justifies his advancement in rank as a senior. Likewise a fencer can become an intermediate only by specific achievements in official sectional or divisional championships. Any comparable achievement in a non-championship competition does not count.
The fundamental distinction between “championships” and plain “competitions” is further emphasized by our new Rule 15, so that strict adherence to the rules of competition is required in all events which affect the higher classifications. A handicap event may conceivably be the basis for transition from “novice” to “junior,” but it can never be the basis of “intermediate” or “senior” rating.
Finally, under our new Rules, the control of the national rating of fencers is now under the jurisdiction of the local governing body. This control, as suggested in an advisory paragraph (Rule 18), may be exercised by intelligent draftsmanship in the local schedule of events. The title of a specific event should be decided only after considering the effect it may have upon the national rating of the winners. There is no essential need for any division to hold an “open championship,” unless the strength of competition warrants classifying the three medalists as intermediates; a divisional intermediate or junior championship might be preferable. Or, for that matter, it might be best not to schedule any “championship” events, if the divisional fencers are not as a group ready for the consequent transition to the higher classifications; the holding of open or limited “competitions” could provide competitive opportunities without raising the classification of the winners beyond the junior rank.
There remains a great deal of work to be done in standardizing the various sectional championships. As Ferard Leicester wrote me some weeks ago, these events are more important to the great bulk of fencers than the nationals, because so few of the fencers have the time to go to the nationals. A lot has been done already to raise these events to the dignity which they rightfully deserve. More can be done. I shall take this up again when we deal specifically with the sectional championships.
All this cannot be accomplished overnight. The fact remains, however, that we are beginning to see the problem of classification in a national light. I think that we have taken significant steps toward its solution, and that—granted our rules are still far from perfect—we are on the right road.
One final point: The Rules Committee considered objections to the titles of our five basic classifications, especially to the words “junior” and “senior”—which have misleading age connotations in the popular mind. The suggestion was that “seniors” become “class A” or “class 1” fencers; “intermediates,” “class B” or “class 2,” and so on. There is considerable merit in this idea, and it is one of the items that we should like all fencers to keep in mind as a possible amendment in the future. Your Committee decided against a change at this time only because our present titles have been long established. We thought it best to wait until the general membership had had a chance to think about the possible change and perhaps find objections which had not occurred to us. As I said in my previous article, the real improvement in many of our rules must come from the fencers themselves. I therefore urge you again to take an active interest in the formulation of our future rules.
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : II. Those Pesky Classifications
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : III. More About Classification
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : IV. The National Championship Tournament
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : V. Resolving Ties in Round-Robin
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : The Scoring System
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : A New Competitive Plan for the I.C.F.A.
