-
Title
-
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : A New Competitive Plan for the I.C.F.A.
-
Date
-
February 1942
-
volume
-
7
-
issue
-
1
-
pages
-
10-11, 14-15
-
content
-
en
Sidelights on the New Rules Book
A New Competitive Plan for the I.C.F.A.
By Miguel A. de Capriles
This is the seventh in a series of articles of comment on the new rules book by Mr. de Capriles, chairman of the A. F. L. A. and I. C. F. A. rules committees. While the current article deals with the methods used by one intercollegiate conference to solve its championship problems, it should be of interest to other conferences, both among colleges and in the A. F. L. A., where a plan of competition is needed to decide both individual and team champions without too many hours of overtime fencing.
—
WHEN the rules book was prepared, the A. F. L. A., the N. C. A. A., and the Intercollegiate Fencing Association collaborated on the technical rules in the interest of uniformity. However, no description of the plan of college competition was included because each college league has a peculiar local problem, rather than one of general national application. I propose in this article to summarize the various plans devised by the Intercollegiate Fencing Association—the oldest college league in the country—since its foundation in 1894, and to evaluate briefly the major features of the new plan to govern the 1942 Championships, which will be held on March 21 and 22.
—
The Complete Round-Robin
When the I. C. F. A. was founded, competition was limited to the foil, and the number of member colleges was small. It was relatively easy to organize a complete round-robin of all competitors to determine both the team and the individual champions. This, as you know, is the ideal method of running fencing competitions. However, individual and team events in sabre and epee began to make their appearance, until the typical college fencing team consisted of three men in foil, two in epee, and two in sabre. In addition, new colleges began to sponsor fencing teams and to seek admission to membership in the I. C. F. A. The situation became acute shortly after the first World War and a new plan of competition had to be devised.
—
The Divisional Plan
The next plan was modeled after the “pool” system—a familiar variation of the round-robin. Semifinal rounds were held in each of three “divisions,” a week or two before the “finals.” The Northern Division met at either Harvard or Yale, the Central Division at West Point, and the Southern Division at Annapolis. The two leading teams and the best individual performers in each weapon were qualified from each division into the championship round-robin—a two-day gala affair at the Hotel Astor in New York, which included the colorful Championship Ball. As many as 16 teams, mostly from the Atlantic Seaboard, but including Ohio State, took part in the Intercollegiates at this time.
Then came the depression. A number of colleges abandoned fencing and resigned from the Association. Those who remained sought to cut down on expenses by abolishing the expense of trips to divisional semifinals. The I. C. F. A. Constitution was revised late in 1931 to centralize management in the hands of interested alumni, with a Graduate Secretary at the helm. A new plan was devised to run the entire championship in a single two-day session in New York.
—
The “Olympic” Plan
Following the general pattern of the Olympics, the “condensed” plan called for a separation of the team events and the individual championships. The colleges were grouped into four preliminary pools, of three or four teams each. The two top teams qualified into the semi-finals (two pools of four teams each) and the final round consisted of the four best teams. The Three-Weapon Trophy was decided on a point basis, 5 for first, 4 for second, and so on, 1 point being allowed to a team eliminated in the semifinal. The individual events were held on the second day. Each college was allowed two individual entries in each weapon, and the competition progressed according to the usual “pool” system: Four preliminaries of 6 men, two semi-finals of 6, and a final of 6 (in 1932) or 4 (in 1933 and 1934).
By this time, the membership of the I. C. F. A. had become stabilized at twelve: Army, C.C.N.Y., Columbia, Cornell, Hamilton, Harvard, M.I.T., Navy, N.Y.U., Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale. There was increasing interest in equalizing the competitive representation for epee and sabre by raising the number of fencers on the team from two to three. This could not be done if the team events had to be completed on a single day. In addition, there was objection to the “Olympic” plan on the ground that the early elimination of the weaker teams and individuals deprived the weaker colleges of enough competition to justify the expense of the Championships. Further, the complete separation of the team and individual events was not popular: The stars of the team—the real heroes in collegiate eyes—might have sacrificed their individual chances by “all-out” efforts on the first day, so that the individual championships were regarded as anti-climactic. Thus, after three years, the time was ripe for a new experiment.
—
The “A B C” Plan
The model for the new plan was a form of team competition used in the Washington Square Cup competition of the A. F. L. A., based on a modified round-robin scheme. Each college nominated its No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 fencer in each weapon. All the No. 1 or “Class A” fencers met in a round-robin, as did the No. 2 (“Class B”) and No. 3 (“Class C”) men. Each individual victory counted in the team score, both for the separate weapons and for the Three-Weapon Trophy. Each fencer competed in 11 bouts and no one was eliminated. The individual winner in the “Class A” pool was recognized as champion, and was given the only individual gold medal. Silver medals went to the second man of Class A and to the winner of Class B. Bronze medals were awarded for third place in Class A, second in Class B, and first in Class C.
In order to retain as much as possible the unique flavor of team competition, the schedule called for “matching” the three fencers of one college against the representatives of another. A carefully worked out time-table, requiring precision in the routing of teams and in the assignment of officials, governed the entire round-robin. A complete schedule was available in the printed program for the benefit of spectators. On the final evening, prior to the Championship Ball, each college was represented by one of its teams.
This plan proved to be generally popular, being used for five years (1935 to 1939 inclusive). It is true that the large number of bouts and the complicated timetable limited its usefulness to an Association of 12 colleges, so that the I. C. F. A. could not increase its membership to meet the growing list of applications. But the question of accommodating the new centers of collegiate fencing was answered by the establishment of other strong college leagues. It is interesting to note that the Eastern Conference adopted the so-called “A B C Plan” for its championships. The main quarrel during the five-year term of the “A B C Plan” in the I. C. F. A. had to do with the so-called “nine-man rule”—that is, whether or not the Association would permit a fencer to compete in more than one weapon. This, however, had nothing to do with the plan itself.
From the viewpoint of the team events, the major flaw in the plan was the unequal strength of the three pools, since a bout victory in the “A” pool, which was relatively difficult, counted no more than a victory in the “C” pool. Some manipulation was possible in order to reap the highest number of points for the team totals. But the chief objection to the “A B C” system was directed against the individual results. A fencer entered in Class B or Class C was automatically barred from a chance to win the individual gold medal. This was particularly objectionable if two men from the same college were of approximately equal strength, since only one could compete in Class A. In the view of many observers, the plan tended to reduce the individual titles to a meaningless confusion.
These objections crystallized after the breakdown of the “A B C Plan” at the 1939 Championships. During the previous year, amendments to the I.C.F.A. constitution shifted management of the fencing championships from the alumni to the Central Office for Eastern Intercollegiate Athletics. This move antagonized most of the outstanding amateur officials for reasons that need not be discussed. The annual Championship Ball was eliminated, since no parallel was to be found in other branches of intercollegiate sport, and the tournament was moved from its customary hotel setting to a Park Avenue armory. The net result was that inadequate facilities and scarcity of competent officials destroyed the delicate synchronization required by the plan of competition, and that there was some demand for the formulation of a new system.
—
The Mid-West Plan
The new plan was based on a method of team scoring used in the A.F.L.A.’s Mid-West Championship and in the Big Ten. Structurally it was simply an individual championship organized on the pool system according to the best national and international practice. The 36 contestants in each weapon were divided into six preliminary pools of 6 fencers according to a secret seeding plan, so that the strength of the various pools was approximately equal. One-half of the fencers dropped out, and the other half progressed to the semi-finals, where the elimination process was completed. Thus the final round consisted of 9 best men in the field, and the individual champion well merited his title. The team score was computed on the aggregate number of bout victories achieved by each individual through the three rounds of competition, so that the scoring power of the individual star was greater than ever before. For the Three-Weapon Trophy, in 1940, the sum total of the bouts won in all weapons was counted; in 1941, the relative standing in the various weapons was used, in order to favor the balanced three-weapon team rather than one having overwhelming superiority in one or even two weapons.
One of the major arguments in favor of this plan was its flexibility in accommodating more than 12 colleges. As many as 16 teams could be handled with relatively few additional bouts. But this argument lost force, not only because of the growth of other strong college fencing leagues, but also because the Association decided to invite a non-member college to compete when one of the 12 members chose not to participate in the 1941 Championships.
The major objection to the Mid-West plan was the elimination of the weaker fencers early in the tournament. There were other difficulties: if two or three fencers from the same college reached the finals, the result of their bouts against each other went to swell their team’s total; the primary emphasis on the individual championship tended to minimize the element of team competition. But the fundamental desire of the majority of the coaches was to give each fencer an equal opportunity to score for his team, as had been possible under the “A B C Plan.” Recognizing the weakness of the ABC system in determining individual champions, the coaches were even willing to withdraw individual championship recognition from the winners of the various pools. Thus the stage was set for still another plan of competition, which would seek to embody the best features of the ABC Plan (preferred from the team viewpoint), and of the Mid-West Plan (admittedly the best for the individual events), for the 1942 Championships.
—
The Compromise Plan
As in the ABC system, the new plan requires each college to nominate its No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 fencers in each weapon, and the 36 contestants are divided into three pools of 12 men. Thus each fencer will compete in 11 bouts, regardless of his individual record, and each college will have the same scoring opportunities, as the team score will be the aggregate of bout victories achieved by its representatives. But there is one important difference in the composition of the three pools: Instead of concentrating all the best fencers in pool A, each of the three pools will include four No. 1, four No. 2, and four No. 3 fencers, distributed according to a master seeding plan. This will tend to equalize the strength of the three pools, so that a victory in pool C will be as meritorious as one in pool A. The team competition in each weapon will be over when the three pools are completed, and the Three-Weapon Trophy will be awarded on the total points scored in the three separate team competitions.
Following the team events, the two highest individual scorers in each pool will be eligible for the individual championship round-robin of 6 men in each weapon, which will have absolutely no bearing on the team results. In order to reach the individual final, however, a fencer must have rendered outstanding service to his team, so that the unity of purpose in team and individual competition is preserved. At the same time, every competitor will have an equal opportunity to win the individual title, and the champion will have met the best adversaries in the entire field.
The main difficulty with the Compromise Plan is its technical operation within the two-day limit. It requires 45 more bouts than the ABC Plan. The ideal method of running the competition would be to adopt the “match” schedule for the team events, leaving the individual finals for the evening of the second day. This requires spacious physical facilities and an ample supply of competent officials; otherwise a repetition of the difficulties of 1939 may be expected. On the other hand, the Compromise Plan could be run without attempting to “match” the three representatives of each college, with some saving of space and officials, at the cost of losing the colorful setting of a more or less authentic team rivalry. Thus the question of locale assumes primary importance.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the elimination of the Annual Championship Ball has been an intangible but powerful factor in the dissatisfaction of competitors, coaches, and officials, with the plans of competition followed in 1939, 1940, and 1941. I think that the plan is probably secondary, and that the real trouble is the loss of the atmosphere that prevailed at the Hotel Astor and the Hotel Commodore in New York, or at the Penn Athletic Club in 1933. The combination of the championships and the annual ball was a unique and brilliant event for all concerned, and the net cost to the Association, under the financial arrangements that prevailed prior to 1939, was frequently lower than it is now, due to the income from the dance. However, recent investigation of hotel rates indicates that the price of suitable accommodations has doubled or tripled, so that there seems to be no reasonable prospect of early resumption of one of the finest traditions in intercollegiate athletics. Perhaps the war situation will operate further to delay or permanently to eliminate the colorful hotel setting for the I.C.F.A. championships. Let us hope, however, that this will not be the case.
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.
