USA Fencing New Points & Events Structure Parent, Athlete & Member Companion Q&A

Q. Should we change our fencer’s 2026–27 schedule right away?

A. Not yet. Families should wait for the full points tables, initial/beta rankings, event schedules, and the 2026–27 Athlete Handbook before making expensive travel decisions. The safest approach is to build a flexible plan with your coach, then adjust once your fencer’s actual starting position and target events are visible.

Q. What should parents and athletes prioritize when choosing events?

A. Use points as one input, not the only input. A strong plan balances four things: development, qualification needs, cost, and school impact. Some events may be worth attending because they provide the right level of opponents, even if they are not the easiest place to earn points. Other events may offer points but little useful experience.

• Ask your coach what the fencer should be learning at that event.
• Ask whether the same developmental goal can be met closer to home.
• Ask whether the event still makes sense if the fencer earns few or no points that day.
• Ask whether the travel and missed school are justified by the likely fencing value.

Q. Does attending more tournaments automatically create a better ranking?

A. No, not automatically. Only a fencer’s six best results count toward the new unified trial points total. Once a fencer has six strong results, simply entering more events does not add points unless one of the new results improves the top six.

That said, volume still matters in a practical way: a family that can attend more events has more chances to replace a weak result with a stronger one. That is why the trial should monitor whether rankings correlate too strongly with number of events entered, total travel, or family resources.

Q. How can families protect school time?

A. The new system is designed to give families more flexibility to protect school time and to decrease financial burden by making national points more accessible through local and regional events, which typically span two days, instead of three or four. Whether the new system accomplishes this goal will be one of the things we will monitor and we encourage feedback from you during the trial period.

Q. What should a newer competitive family do first?

A. Start with the ladder. A newer fencer usually needs consistent local competition, then appropriate regional events, then national events when those are developmentally useful. Parents should ask, “Is my fencer ready for the next rung?” rather than “Can we find a way to get onto the next rung as fast as possible?”

Q. What are the main concerns parents are raising?

A. The biggest concerns are straightforward: the system may favor families with more time and money; it may push fencers toward easier regional events instead of harder developmental events; fencing up could create ways to accumulate points strategically; local events could be manipulated if oversight is weak; and more travel could mean more missed school. The trial should test whether these concerns actually appear in the data and in member experience.

Q. Will the system favor families with more time and money?

A. Potentially. While the “best-six-results” cap serves as a guardrail, it cannot entirely eliminate the advantage of volume. Simply put, a fencer who can afford to compete in ten or twelve events mathematically has more opportunities to drop poor placements and lock in six strong results compared to a fencer limited to four or five.

But this concern must be weighed against the financial barriers of the current system:

Today, remaining nationally competitive often requires traveling to distant, multi-day competitions (such as NACs and SJCCs). The costs of flights and hotels, combined with the length of these mega-events, strain family budgets, require parental time off work, and force students to miss school.

The proposed system is intended to alleviate this pressure. By allowing fencers to earn points at closer-to-home local and regional tournaments, it opens a pathway to national visibility that reduces travel expenses, and time away from the classroom and work.

Ultimately, a central question for the two-year trial period is how these competing factors will balance out in practice, and what structural adjustments may be necessary for more equitable access across the sport. Your feedback will be invaluable.

Q. Won’t this push fencers toward the easiest regional tournaments?

A. This is one of the most important issues to watch. The initial approach does not use regional strength factors, meaning a regional result may be worth the same even if one field is much stronger than another. This creates a possible incentive to seek out easier events. But it should be noted as well that if a greater number of stronger fencers seek to attend competitions outside their home region, this will also raise the level of those competitions that were previously seen as an easier place to earn points. The possible end outcome, then, is a more balanced level of tournament difficulty across all regions, thereby validating the standard point values available for all regionals. We valued a Regional win at 100 points (without strength factor) to attempt to balance the following and competing goals: (1) disincentivizing “easier regional tournament shopping for points”; (2) creating a meaningful points incentive for regional events and to grow these events; and (3) ease of administering this system. During the trial period, we are willing to revisit whether 100 points with no caps on the number of Regional (and local) events that can count in the best six is the proper balance.

Q. Could fencers game the system by fencing up at easier regional events?

A. That risk exists. Fencing up can be developmentally valuable when the event provides better opponents. It becomes a problem if the main reason is to find a softer path to points that trickles down to help a lower-age-category ranking. Parents and coaches should choose events because they make developmental sense - not because they are perceived as easy targets to achieve a higher result.

Q. Could local tournaments be manipulated?

A. Parents have raised concerns about clubs arranging small events or rotating winners as internal point opportunities. Local points are intentionally lower than regional points, and significantly lower than national points, which lowers the risk, but the concern remains. Ultimately, the value of winning a local competition is so much lower than the other levels, that the ability to influence rankings is expected to be minimal, beyond allowing a fencer to move up to the next level for regional events when they are ready to do so. Good local growth requires trust: events must be properly sanctioned, publicly listed, honestly seeded, fairly refereed, and open to the community, as is the case today.

Q. If my fencer is placed in National instead of Elite, should that feel like a demotion?

A. No. When a national event crosses 168 entries, it splits into Elite (capped at 112) and National (up to 224). The National tier should be described as a meaningful national-level competition for fencers who may still climb toward the top tier, and it is not a consolation event. For many fencers, it provides more balanced pools, more evenly contested bouts, and a better chance to learn how to win at a national event. Parents and coaches should avoid language that makes National sound like “not good enough.”

Q. How does a fencer move from National to Elite?

A. Strong National results are intended to move a fencer upward. The point values overlap between tiers so that success at National can earn access to Elite. Because the list uses a one-year rolling window and the best six results, movement should be possible without making one good or bad day define a fencer permanently.

Q. Will the Elite tier become stronger?

A. Likely yes. When the largest events split, the Elite field should contain fewer early-round mismatches and more bouts between top fencers. This improves the competitive value of Elite events while giving National fencers a field where their bouts are more balanced. The desired outcome is better-matched competition at both levels, as well as a more sustainable length of day.

Q. Why do local events count at all?

A. Local events are meant to restore value to competition close to home (targeting a 30% increase in local participation) and give developing fencers a visible first rung on the ladder. They also give coaches and families a clearer signal about whether a fencer is ready for broader competition. The local tier is not a substitute for high-quality regional or national competition. Additionally, by awarding points at local events, this provides an opportunity to also rank and seed athletes in the initial tiers of their development appropriately. A fencer who has competed in one local competition is already a step further along in their development than a fencer who has not, and reflecting this in points, rankings and tournament seeding fills a gap which currently exists in the system now.

Q. How will mixed-gender or combined local events be treated?

A. The current guidance is that a mixed-gender event would be pointed as if it were a non-mixed-gender event for each fencer’s own weapon-and-gender list. This approach is meant to keep local events simpler, especially in developing areas that rely on mixed events for viable field sizes. If it creates unexpected distortions, it should be revisited during the trial.

Q. What if my home region has fewer Regional events than other regions?

A. This is one of the issues the Trial period will monitor. Regions differ in the number and strength of fencers, clubs, venues, and available Regional events. A region with more events may offer more opportunities to replace weak results, while a region with fewer events may create fewer chances but potentially less competitive depth. USA Fencing should monitor the number of eligible events by region, participation levels, field strength, travel patterns, and whether fencers in lower-density regions are disadvantaged. If the data shows a regional-access problem, USA Fencing will consider targeted adjustments before permanent adoption.

Q. How will Div. IA, Div. II, Div. III be valued under the new unified points list?

A. The Trial system is being introduced first for the Cadet, Junior, and Senior levels. For National Tournaments, the Senior level event is most often Division I. At Regional Tournaments, DV1A, DVII and DVIII are also Senior categories. For DV1A, the points awarded will be those outlined in the regional points tables published already in the original release, with a maximum value of 100 pts for a win, as there is no direct equivalent for DVI in regionals. For DVII and DVIII, these will award points, but at a reduced scale, due to the rating caps for these events resulting in an overall reduced strength of field. The final scale for DVII and DVIII will be announced before the beginning of the 26-27 competition season.

Q. What kind of feedback is most useful?

A. Specific feedback is far more useful than general approval or frustration. A parent saying “this rewards points chasing” is important, but it becomes actionable when paired with examples. Include the fencer’s age category, weapon, region, and competitive level, along with the specific event choices made because of the points table. Describe the tradeoff: easier points versus better development, cost versus access, or school absence versus competitive value.

Q. What questions should parents ask after the first few events?

• Did the event feel like the right competitive level?
• Did the points awarded feel directionally consistent with the strength of the result?
• Did the family choose this event mainly for points, or because it was the right developmental opportunity?
• Did the event add travel, cost, or school absence compared with prior seasons?
• Were there any local or regional results that looked unusual enough to merit review?

Parent, Athlete and Member Checklist Before Registering

1. Review the official points tables and Athlete Handbook once published.
2. Check the fencer’s starting position on the beta or initial list, and correct any errors promptly.
3. Set a family budget and school-absence limit before selecting events.
4. Build the schedule around development first, then qualification needs, then points.
5. For every planned tournament, ask: Would we still go if no points were available?
6. Watch for incentives that feel unhealthy, and report them with specific examples to USA Fencing at information@usafencing.org.

A Clear Item, and a Clear Ask.

No system that deals with such a variety of athlete needs, geographies and tournament sizes is inherently perfect, and it warrants consistent review and improvement. The system prior to 2026-27 is also not perfect. USA Fencing has made it clear it wants to hear the good and the bad of the new system, and you are highly encouraged to reach out with constructive, example-based feedback across the coming two-year trial to information@usafencing.org.