Did you win a medal? What round did you get to in the Direct Elimination? Where did you place? These three questions are probably the most common analysis of fencer performance in tournaments. Unfortunately, they are often the deepest level of analysis applied to fencer performance in tournaments. Fencers and coaches need more data and better analysis tools to identify what is happening on the strip in competition.
Fencing is the game of the single touch. The more touches a fencer scores in a competition, the better the fencer’s indicators (touches scored minus touches received) will be, and the more probable it is that the fencer will win more bouts. At the simplest level of analysis fencers and coaches have to look at indicators. If bout indicators (the percentage of bouts won) are increasing and touch indicators are also increasing, or if they are stable when the fencer competes in more difficult tournaments, overall performance is increasing.
The tendency is to look at victory percentages and indicators in the pools, but not in the direct elimination. This is a mistake. Although the tactics of the direct elimination may be different than those of the pool, the victory percentage reveals how good a job the fencer does in fighting through the direct elimination table, and allows comparison of results between differing size events. This is particularly important for Youth 10 and Youth 12 fencer who fight best of three bouts. Overall touch indicators are important in reflecting how efficient the fencer is in controlling the bouts.
This performance has to be evaluated in context for two very specific factors. First, the widespread use of mixed tournaments at the Division level means that women are fencing predominantly against men. Regardless of the benefits or disadvantages of this policy, it means that female fencers do not get an obvious picture of their performance versus the opponents they will fence in national level events and in qualifiers for those events – other women. To a certain degree this also applies to men. Therefore, any analysis of tournament performance must to look at where the fencer places by gender.
The second significant context issue is placement by classification. In an A2 event an unclassified fencer is most probably the easy bout in the pool for the classified fencers. But how that unclassified fencer places is a good indication of how ready he or she is to move up to an E classification. Highest U of 8 fencers is a positive sign; middle of the unclassified pack indicates work to still be done. And the same applies to analysis within the E, D, C, and B classifications.
For the purposes of comparison and tracking progress it is useful to convert overall placement, and placement within classification and gender, to a percentile measurement. This show the fencer’s place within the field. There are a number of ways to calculate percentiles, but a simple formula works well: fencer location = 1 – ((place in the field – 1) divided by the number of fencers).
A final key measurement is the number of bouts that could have been won or lost. Identify the number of bouts won 5-4 or 15-13 or closer; this is an approximation of how many bouts the fencer could have lost by bad luck, the other fencer waking up and make a critical adjustment in their game, etc. The measurement of bouts that could have been won uses the same point criterion. Neither of these are exact measurements, but the presence of a number of could-have-losts indicates either that the fencer has made a significant jump from losing those same bouts or that the fencer has work to do to keep from sliding. Similarly, a number of could-have-wons may indicate that the fencer is poised for a significant improvement in results and that training needs to focus on how to convert the last touch to one for rather than one against.
Are there other measurements and comparisons that you can do based on the data – certainly. The ready availability of spreadsheet programs as part of standard software packages provide an easy tool for both recording raw numbers and performing calculations. FRED makes a large amount of data available, depending, of course of the good will of the tournament organizers. Make a point of spending time recording and crunching the numbers; both fencers and coaches will find it to be time well spent.
Walter Green is a Maitre d’Armes (Fencing Master) certified by the Academie d’Armes Internationale. He teaches modern competitive and classical fencing, historical swordplay, bayonet fencing, and Asian martial arts swords at Salle Green (http://www.sallegreen.com), the fencing school he operates in Glen Allen, Virginia. Maitre Green also trains fencing coaches through the Pan American Fencing Academy (http://panamfencing.com). He serves as a Head Examiner for the certification of professional fencing coaches for the United States Fencing Coaches Association, and chairs the USFCA’s Club Committee.
Pingback: Alexander1
Pingback: Alexander7