"not ever review is good" -- The Follow-Up Thread

[Victor]

Remember the thread from the other day that addressed the obnoxious comments made by S.I.com columnist Bechtel about fencing? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...log/index.html

Well, if you take a look at that same column now, you'll see a change in that original text. *Someone* decided to edit out more than 50 percent of his ignorance, leaving us instead with slightly less snarky observations -- sadly, still negative, but more within the bounds of shock-jock rant column writing:

"Speaking of aesthetically unpleasing sport, is there a worse event to watch on TV than fencing? The combatants dress up in shiny silver suits that light up when they're struck, making the fencers look like Eugene Levy during the Nothing Ever Happens on Mars number in Waiting For Guffman. ... And fellas, swashbuckle a little, will ya?"

My best guess is that he received a few e-mails pointing out his ignorance. We can only wonder ...

[darius]

That's pretty funny.

But it illustrates something interesting about the Internet -- unless somebody caches a copy, there's always plausible deniability.

darius

[MyraTrue]

I don't know if anyone has posted this, or if anyone got a reply like I did.

Here's the laugh of it. In my mailbox this morning was this:

Dear Ms. [insert last name ]:

Thank you for a detailed, knowledgable letter which will be shared with the senior editor at SI.com and with Mr. Bechtel. We appreciate that you took the time to write.

Sincerely,
SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Letters Department

[FoilyGeezer]

Geez I guess I didn't merit a reply. Must not have made that much of an impression....or maybe too much of one.....either way...

good times, good times

[MyraTrue]

I don't know why I got a reply. I think I tried to lay the guilt on nice and thick.

Anything titled "ignorance is not attractive" was pretty bad from the start.

*goes and hides her soap box which was used a lot in the letter*

[Pun]

Sry, I missed the first one. And now I can't find it, can somebody paraphrase what they edited out please.

But I agree, he is obviously an idiot.

[MyraTrue]

I think this should cover it.

Found this while reading about how the U.S. viewership has turned against the baskteball "Dream Team"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...blog/index.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by March Bechtel
Speakins of aesthetically unpleasing sport, is there a worse event to watch on TV than fencing? The combatants dress up in shiny silver suits that light up when they're struck, making the fencers look like Eugene Levy during the Nothing Ever Happens on Mars number in Waiting For Guffman. Now, you'd think if they can make a suit illuminate, they could rig it so only the first one hit lights up. But no. So what you have is about a second and a half of action, during which both fencers smack each other (think Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber) and both suits light up. Then each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, "I got him!" while looking at the judge, who then apparently decides the winner of the point by flipping a coin, because it seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match I watched were wrong. What's the point of having the suit light up if it doesn't tell you who hit who first? And fellas, swashbuckle a little, will ya?

[esskreemr]

Maybe he's put the words fencers weapons and angry together...

[Victor]

Here's the middle chunk, by itself, that was deleted:

"Now, you'd think if they can make a suit illuminate, they could rig it so only the first one hit lights up. But no. So what you have is about a second and a half of action, during which both fencers smack each other (think Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber) and both suits light up. Then each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, "I got him!" while looking at the judge, who then apparently decides the winner of the point by flipping a coin, because it seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match I watched were wrong. What's the point of having the suit light up if it doesn't tell you who hit who first?"

I'm assuming that he and/or his editor(s) decided to cut the references that clearly illuminated his lack of knowledge of the sport -- i.e. how touches are decided and the technology involved.

(And, yes, I got a standard e-mail reply to my letter as well.)

[hscoach]

I received the standard email reply also.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by FoilyGeezer

Geez I guess I didn't merit a reply. Must not have made that much of an impression....or maybe too much of one.....either way...

good times, good times

Foily,

You have to be "detailed and knowledgable."

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Victor

Here's the middle chunk, by itself, that was deleted:

"Now, you'd think if they can make a suit illuminate, they could rig it so only the first one hit lights up. But no. So what you have is about a second and a half of action, during which both fencers smack each other (think Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber) and both suits light up. Then each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, "I got him!" while looking at the judge, who then apparently decides the winner of the point by flipping a coin, because it seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match I watched were wrong. What's the point of having the suit light up if it doesn't tell you who hit who first?"

I'm assuming that he and/or his editor(s) decided to cut the references that clearly illuminated his lack of knowledge of the sport -- i.e. how touches are decided and the technology involved.

(And, yes, I got a standard e-mail reply to my letter as well.)

That is priceless. With the exception of "flipping a coin," that describes modern sabre perfectly.

[sabreur]

Now, you'd think if they can make a suit illuminate, they could rig it so only the first one hit lights up. But no. So what you have is about a second and a half of action, during which both fencers smack each other (think Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber) and both suits light up. Then each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, "I got him!" while looking at the judge, who then apparently decides the winner of the point by flipping a coin, because it seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match I watched were wrong. What's the point of having the suit light up if it doesn't tell you who hit who first?"

Originally Posted by DanInMI

That is priceless. With the exception of "flipping a coin," that describes modern sabre perfectly.

We haven't flipped coins in sabre for years. That entertainment is now reserved for epeeists and the occasional pair of foilists who end regulation time with the score tied....

I'll leave it to other sabreurs to explain the other reasons why the comment by the SI guy is really pretty stupid.

[MyraTrue]

We haven't flipped coins in sabre for years.

nope, its based on who has more intersting socks, who makes better gestures after the touche has been scored, or who screams louder, these days.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by sabreur

We haven't flipped coins in sabre for years. That entertainment is now reserved for epeeists and the occasional pair of foilists who end regulation time with the score tied....

I'll leave it to other sabreurs to explain the other reasons why the comment by the SI guy is really pretty stupid.

Why? are you saying that the rest is NOT accurate?

The fact is, at the command "allez" you DO get "about a second and a half of action," during which "both fencers smack each other.....and both suits light up."(or both lights on the scoring box) Then, (in very unsportsmanlike fashion,) " each fencer pumps a fist as if to say, 'I got him!' while looking at the judge." What is not accurate about that?

I have said in an earlier thread that I felt that the directing that I saw on TV was amazingly good.

The fact that to him it "seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match... were wrong" only further illustrates why sabre is the wrong sport to introduce lay-persons to the sport of fencing.

[dunastor]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

The fact that to him it "seemed like half the calls in the sabre finals match... were wrong" only further illustrates why sabre is the wrong sport to introduce lay-persons to the sport of fencing.

No, the fact that to him half the calls seemed to be wrong implies he has knowledge of the sport of sabre fencing, which, apparent from the rest of his piece of journalism, he has not.
If explained correctly, any weapon can be introduced to lay-persons (although epee might be easier to explain correctly of course...)

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by dunastor

No, the fact that to him half the calls seemed to be wrong implies he has knowledge of the sport of sabre fencing, ..)

Huh?

the calls seemed wrong to all of my nonfencing friends. Does that imply that they have knowledge of fencing?

[dunastor]

Well..... yes....

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I recieved a reply the same day I wrote the email to SI, which was the same day the thread about it was started.

T'was the standard response.

[Namir]

Originally Posted by dunastor

Well..... yes....

I think it is quite clear that he has no idea what he is talking abought.

He pointed out quite clearly that he thought that the first touch should get the point.

And clubmates of mine and myself have all received the comment

"Did you see how she screamed after every touch, like that, it was soooo un-sportsman like"

~or~

"Oh, it looks like he hit way first."

~or, even~

"What so they just go at each other like that?"

At least in Epee their is some give and take to the sport... sabre normally looks like the two fencers just charge, and 60-70% of the time they do.

I think foil could be to confuseing to a non-fencing audience becouse of the flick attack, even though their is more of a "swashbuckiling" feeling to it with more parry-repost-counter parry-repost-ext.

At least in epee the action is easy to see and understand, for a Non-fencer.